A Mosque On The Twin Towers Site?

[Balloon guy 158]

i was closer.

Situational reality once again justifying your positions on truth?

[SlapStick 0]

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians."?

I took that to mean that Islam does not fight like the terrorists, basically denouncing them.

[Balloon guy 158]

I took that to mean that Islam does not fight like the terrorists, basically denouncing them.

I guess that's one way to see it.But when the guy is generalizing all of Christianity with the actions of the military during WW2..it's kind of hard to assume he was using fine tuned specifics in the next phrase...Plus you have the whole history thing of the 'Religion of the Sword'

[Roll the Bones 74]

Plus you have the whole history thing of the 'Religion of the Sword'

No one gets to their heaven without a fight.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Okay, I'll bite.I think this comes down to a basic question of, are muslims, in general, and the religion of islam, as a whole, our enemy or not. If they are our enemy, they not only should the mosque not be allowed to be built 2 blocks from the towers, it should not be allowed 20 blocks from the towers, 200 blocks from the towers, or two states from the towers. The logic of preventing them to build a most there, should apply to preventing them to build it anywhere. But, if Islam, the religion, is not our enemy, but rather specific fridge radical islamic groups, then I don't see how we can possibly justify preventing the building of this mosque. This country aspires to be a free one, and the free exercise of religion is pretty high up there on the list of our rights as citizens. It may hurt the feelings of the familys of twin towers victims, who can not separate the religion of Islam from the radical muslims that destroyed the towers, but to be frank, we can not take their feelings into consideration. Maintaining the principals our country was founded on is more important than the feelings of any interest group.That said, could the people who are founding the mosque exercise a little more sensitivity and common sense then founding a mosque withing spitting distance of ground zero? Absolutely. They obviously picked the spot to be provocative and confrontational. But when we set up a principal like " the free exercise of religion" we don't get to pick and choose which religions get to be practiced freely. Even assholes have the right to practice their religion in our country.

[nutzbuster 7]

So would you say that New York STYLE of pizza is the best?Or Chicago?Because I have always found both to basically suck.Give me California Pizza anytime.But not that California Pizza Kitchen stuff, that stuff is like cardboard.

click on that first link in my post.click on the Pizzeria Bianco box. Then click the little menu box. It'll give you a picture of a typical pizza in an oven there. semi soft, semi crisp, perfectly balanced taste. so damn good.

[Balloon guy 158]

Okay, I'll bite.I think this comes down to a basic question of, are muslims, in general, and the religion of islam, as a whole, our enemy or not. If they are our enemy, they not only should the mosque not be allowed to be built 2 blocks from the towers, it should not be allowed 20 blocks from the towers, 200 blocks from the towers, or two states from the towers. The logic of preventing them to build a most there, should apply to preventing them to build it anywhere. But, if Islam, the religion, is not our enemy, but rather specific fridge radical islamic groups, then I don't see how we can possibly justify preventing the building of this mosque. This country aspires to be a free one, and the free exercise of religion is pretty high up there on the list of our rights as citizens. It may hurt the feelings of the familys of twin towers victims, who can not separate the religion of Islam from the radical muslims that destroyed the towers, but to be frank, we can not take their feelings into consideration. Maintaining the principals our country was founded on is more important than the feelings of any interest group.That said, could the people who are founding the mosque exercise a little more sensitivity and common sense then founding a mosque withing spitting distance of ground zero? Absolutely. They obviously picked the spot to be provocative and confrontational. But when we set up a principal like " the free exercise of religion" we don't get to pick and choose which religions get to be practiced freely. Even assholes have the right to practice their religion in our country.

The problem becomes one of others using our freedoms to set in place the vehicles to remove those very freedoms from us.Do we ignore the probable future or do we recognize that we restrict the freedom to bare arms from people who have shown themselves to be unable to be trusted with that freedom?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The problem becomes one of others using our freedoms to set in place the vehicles to remove those very freedoms from us.Do we ignore the probable future or do we recognize that we restrict the freedom to bare arms from people who have shown themselves to be unable to be trusted with that freedom?

But once again, why does being two blocks from the twin towers matter? IF you think muslims are dangerous, and "Can't be trusted" to exercise their religion freely, aren't the just a dangerous in brooklyn as they would be next to ground zero? IF you think their religion, in general, is a seditious, criminal and dangerous, then call for it's to be banned in the country, and it's practitioners deported or arrested. Don't beat around the bush and prevent them to build 2 blocks from the twin towers, because that's just arbitrary.

[Balloon guy 158]

But once again, why does being two blocks from the twin towers matter? IF you think muslims are dangerous, and "Can't be trusted" to exercise their religion freely, aren't the just a dangerous in brooklyn as they would be next to ground zero? IF you think their religion, in general, is a seditious, criminal and dangerous, then call for it's to be banned in the country, and it's practitioners deported or arrested. Don't beat around the bush and prevent them to build 2 blocks from the twin towers, because that's just arbitrary.

The location isn't exactly accidental though. This was a clothing store, that had the landing gear from one of the planes crush the roof. And it's no me, it's the people in NY who are asking it not to built there.They have over 200 Mosque on the island already...

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The location isn't exactly accidental though. This was a clothing store, that had the landing gear from one of the planes crush the roof. And it's no me, it's the people in NY who are asking it not to built there.They have over 200 Mosque on the island already...

I did not say it was accidental. Obviously these muslims who are building it, as I said before, are trying to be proactive and confrontational. BUt the question is, are they criminal or not. Because if not, you have to let them build there. And if they are, they should be in jail or deported. There's a difference, of course, between "do they have the legal right to build a mosque there" ( which I believe they do). and should they exercise some common sense and sensitivity and not build there ( I believe they should exercise it, and not build there). Obviously, they are some sort of activists that want the attention ( and confrontation) that building a mosque in that location will bring them. I find it distasteful, but i would find it more distasteful if we prevented them from building it.

[nutzbuster 7]

It's a dick move. period.

[Roll the Bones 74]

The problem becomes one of others using our freedoms to set in place the vehicles to remove those very freedoms from us.Do we ignore the probable future or do we recognize that we restrict the freedom to bare arms from people who have shown themselves to be unable to be trusted with that freedom?

Unfortunately Christians get the right to vote so taking guns from them would be unlikely. Wait, what?

[Roll the Bones 74]

It's a dick move. period.

Why? It doesn't seem like a radical organization. From the Cordoba Initiative website-Healing the Relationship between the Islamic World and the West …Each of us has the right to take pride in our particular faith or heritage. But the notion that what is ours is necessarily in conflict with what is theirs is both false and dangerous. It has resulted in endless enmity and conflict, leading men to commit the greatest of crimes in the name of a higher power. It need not be so. People of different religions and cultures live side by side in almost every part of the world, and most of us have overlapping identities which unite us with very different groups. We can love what we are, without hating what—and who—we are not. It seems they support alot of multicultural events and we don't know how long they owned the land, possibly before 9/11 which made them a target as well.

[El Guapo 8]

I'm confused, do people actually think it's ok for a Muslim Mosque to be built on the site where Muslim Extremists, in the name of their Religion, waged war and killed over 3,000 people?If a group of people bombed Big Ben, claimed to be Catholics against the state of England, do you think there is any chance a Catholic Church would then be erected in the same spot 10 years later?Free country or not, this is just asinine. Who would sell the land to someone who wanted to do that?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I'm confused, do people actually think it's ok for a Muslim Mosque to be built on the site where Muslim Extremists, in the name of their Religion, waged war and killed over 3,000 people?

Do I think it's okay, or do I think it should be prevented?

[SweetDee 0]

It's a dick move. period.

It's a dick move. It's akin to a rapist being allowed to open a lemonade stand at the site of his last rape, and naming the stand after his victim. That being said, it's perfectly legal and as a free society who also protects people who protest at funerals, this has to be allowed. We can't pick and choose when free speech/freedom of religion is allowed, and since the BG guy seems to be religious of sorts I would say ESPECIALLY when religion is involved, unless you want to be next to be censored.

[Balloon guy 158]

It's a dick move. It's akin to a rapist being allowed to open a lemonade stand at the site of his last rape, and naming the stand after his victim. That being said, it's perfectly legal and as a free society who also protects people who protest at funerals, this has to be allowed. We can't pick and choose when free speech/freedom of religion is allowed, and since the BG guy seems to be religious of sorts I would say ESPECIALLY when religion is involved, unless you want to be next to be censored.

Fact is they as a religion are really not as far removed from the mindset of the terrorist. They couldn't find a common voice when the terrorist behead women or aid workers, they can't find a voice when Americans are hung from bridges, but report that the Koran is being flushed down a toilet, or that a cartoonist made a cartoon about Mohamed..they can find a voice then.I think it is perfectly understandable to remove the guys who picket soldiers funerals, their message isn't worth protecting, and I am cool with telling this mosque that they can't have a permit.I'm not one of the slippery slope brigade

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Fact is they as a religion are really not as far removed from the mindset of the terrorist. They couldn't find a common voice when the terrorist behead women or aid workers, they can't find a voice when Americans are hung from bridges, but report that the Koran is being flushed down a toilet, or that a cartoonist made a cartoon about Mohamed..they can find a voice then.I think it is perfectly understandable to remove the guys who picket soldiers funerals, their message isn't worth protecting, and I am cool with telling this mosque that they can't have a permit.I'm not one of the slippery slope brigade

But again, why not just call for islam to be banned in general. You used the example of gun control as a way of the government putting limits on one of our constitutional rights. They do this for public safty, as private citizens owning rocket launchers really isn't in the public's best interest. They also limit speech in this way. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, where there is no fire, is not protected speech. Dangerous speech is limited. The reason you would limit this islamic group from it's free practice of religion, is because you think it's dangerous. So I ask again, why stop at 2 blocks? IF islam is dangerous, if their mindset is not far removed from a terrorist, as you say, then take it to it's logical conclusion, and call for islam to be banned in general, round muslims up into prisons, deport them. 2 blocks or 2 boroughs, of they are dangerous, they are dangerous.

[hblask 1]

I just want to thank BigD for saving me getting involved in this one. Right on the money!

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I just want to thank BigD for saving me getting involved in this one. Right on the money!

Right on the money that we should allow them to build the mosque ( distasteful though it might be to us) or right on the money we should ban islam and deport and imprison muslims for being seditious?

[hblask 1]

Right on the money that we should allow them to build the mosque ( distasteful though it might be to us) or right on the money we should ban islam and deport and imprison muslims for being seditious?

That we have to decide if they're dangerous. If not, then they can build anywhere; if they are, then they can't build anywhere. And yes, building there is clearly designed to piss people off, but that cannot be a legal basis for banning them. It certainly won't help their case, if they are hoping to show us that Al Qeda is just a radical fringe group.(And for the record, I don't think the religion as a whole meets the test of 'overall dangerous'.)

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

(And for the record, I don't think the religion as a whole meets the test of 'overall dangerous'.)

I wish someone would step up and make the argument. BG didn't have the stomach for it. Where's scram when you need him.

[BaseJester 1]

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

There was a large military presence in Hiroshima. I think there's a good argument that the bombing wasn't necessary for Japan's surrender, but it's inaccurate to describe Hiroshima as a civilian-only target.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm confused, do people actually think it's ok for a Muslim Mosque to be built on the site where Muslim Extremists, in the name of their Religion, waged war and killed over 3,000 people?

It's not really on the site. Its a few blocks away. There are already mosques all over manhattan. How close should they be allowed to get to ground zero? I would prefer there were no mosques at all in new york, but to get rid of them we are going to need to find the antidote to religion.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

It's not really on the site. Its a few blocks away. There are already mosques all over manhattan. How close should they be allowed to get to ground zero? I would prefer there were no mosques at all in new york, but to get rid of them we are going to need to find the antidote to religion.

The pretty ones can stay.