Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh.......I thought you were supporting Larry Flynt for President again!
Do you want the fed to determine where Churches can be built?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Why? He's a Democrat. Your guy.Oh.......I thought you were supporting Larry Flynt for President again!
christiefan915
Catalyst
Then maybe you should keep this pasted to your mirror and study it every day.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Should we be able to build a monument in Japan, glorifying our use of the bomb and how it helped to save lives.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Yes, or a Catholic church near a pre-school.The things I listed weren't meant to be exactly the same things, each were a thing that would attack the sensibilities of some. Should they be legal if there were applied our "Freedom of religion and speech"? Yes. All of them should be legal, should they be done? Not necessarily.
The reality is, that there are many places in the area that could be used without directly effecting those who may feel incensed that they dare build such a thing that close to where their family members were killed by people of that same religion in the name of the religion.
Should it be allowed by law? Yes, as I've argued before it should. Should it be ignored that it attacks the sensibilities of some? Maybe not.
For a religion that spends so much time calling for our tolerance, reaching to explain that it isn't "all of them", maybe a little reciprocity should be employed as running roughshod over the sensibilities of others isn't the best way to seek tolerance from them.
As for a church in Mecca, the place is so "holy" to the Muslims that Christians aren't even allowed to enter the city. If there was freedom of religion throughout their lands should they ignore such things to build their church? Why? What good does it do to directly employ such direct ignorance of the values of others?
If someone from their family was raped, by someone who lived close to them and after serving his sentence, he moved back into his old home; they would have no problem.
Someone may forget what you said; but they usually remember how you made them feel.
Good Luck
New member
I think the whole thing should/could come down to one basic question:
Would this mosque be under consideration had 9/11 not occurred?
Yes. At least, all the information I can see says 9/11 has nothing to do with the plans to build a mosque in place of an oldd furniture warehouse. In which case, why are people making a mountain out of a mole hill?
Now if the proposal were to build a mosque on property of which the buildings were damaged and subsequently cleared due to the 9/11 attacks, then any criticisms would be at least understandable, if not justified. I myself would question whether there were ulterior, perhaps religious extremist motivations to the request to build within the boundaries of the 9/11 attacks.
But, as far as I can see, the proposed construction would replace a building that was not touched by 9/11. It is simply where the people think would make a good location for their place of worship. That is is also close to "ground zero" is, apparently, a coincidence. The location of the Muslim community within that particular area of NYC certainly came about LONG before 9/11.
As such, the critics are, at the very least, being over-the-top sensitive to Muslims in the area of the attack. At worst, they are hate filled bigots.
Would this mosque be under consideration had 9/11 not occurred?
Yes. At least, all the information I can see says 9/11 has nothing to do with the plans to build a mosque in place of an oldd furniture warehouse. In which case, why are people making a mountain out of a mole hill?
Now if the proposal were to build a mosque on property of which the buildings were damaged and subsequently cleared due to the 9/11 attacks, then any criticisms would be at least understandable, if not justified. I myself would question whether there were ulterior, perhaps religious extremist motivations to the request to build within the boundaries of the 9/11 attacks.
But, as far as I can see, the proposed construction would replace a building that was not touched by 9/11. It is simply where the people think would make a good location for their place of worship. That is is also close to "ground zero" is, apparently, a coincidence. The location of the Muslim community within that particular area of NYC certainly came about LONG before 9/11.
As such, the critics are, at the very least, being over-the-top sensitive to Muslims in the area of the attack. At worst, they are hate filled bigots.
Good Luck
New member
However, to answer the question, government tells religions all the time where they can and cannot build their places of worship. If a religion were to propose a church on the southern shore of McDonald Lake in Glacier National Park, the federal government would tell them a great big HELL NO!
If a religion were to ask the city to build in a location that would be disruptive to the surrounding residents (traffic load, would need a zoning change for building height, etc.) then they would be within their just powers to deny the application.
As such, the question of concern would be not be if government should have those powers, but rather if any prohibitions, or permissions, were handed down fairly and evenly without regard to which religion is asking.
If a religion were to ask the city to build in a location that would be disruptive to the surrounding residents (traffic load, would need a zoning change for building height, etc.) then they would be within their just powers to deny the application.
As such, the question of concern would be not be if government should have those powers, but rather if any prohibitions, or permissions, were handed down fairly and evenly without regard to which religion is asking.
Last edited:
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The key point being that which I put in boldface.
the vast majority of muslims in the u s of a are law abiding
so the government goes with the first amendment and the yammerheads go with hate....and fear
Basically exactly what I think.
Ignoring the effects on others is a form of intolerance. Those who wish others to be tolerant need to understand their impacts on others. And you are wrong, they are comparable as decisions that could be legal in my hypothetical but would cause controversy. It's a simple fix, choose a different place to show respect for those who feel it is inappropriate.
Ground-Zero Green Light for Islamic Supremacism
"The primary argument in favor of construction of the mosque, of course, is that it is a matter of religious freedom. We are endlessly told that if Muslims are denied permission to build this mega-mosque at Ground Zero, the door will be opened to the denial of the construction of synagogues and churches elsewhere. That argument advances in ignorance of the political and supremacist character of Islamic law, qualities that have no parallel in Jewish or Christian doctrine, but even aside from that, the question of this mosque is not actually a religious freedom issue.
Why not? Because opponents of the mosque, be they Pamela Geller's group Stop Islamization Of America (SIOA), or Sarah Palin, or Rudy Giuliani, or Newt Gingrich, or anyone else, are not talking about banning mosques altogether. I do believe that mosques connected with the Saudis and/or the Muslim Brotherhood warrant careful scrutiny from law enforcement, but no one who is in the front line of the opposition to the mega-mosque at Ground Zero is calling for all mosques to be closed or for a ban on the construction of new mosques. And unless the property is marked as a war memorial, as it should be but will not be, no one is even calling for the expulsion of the Muslims who are currently praying in the existing former Burlington Coat Factory building at 45 Park Place; the Burlington Coat Factory is not a thirteen-story triumphal mega-mosque.
The question is, does the First Amendment really give every religious group the right to construct a house of worship wherever it wishes to do so? Is there never an occasion in which a location might be inappropriate? Many people have likened the construction of the mega-mosque at Ground Zero to the construction of a shrine to the kamikazes at Pearl Harbor or of a statue of Hitler outside the Auschwitz gates. Would the KKK be greenlighted to build a "reconciliation center" on the site of the 16th St. Baptist Church, as this parody [3] has it? (Others have rejected these comparisons based on the claim that the Cordoba Initiative leaders are "moderate" Muslims who hold to a radically different point of view from that of the Muslims who took down the Twin Towers on 9/11, but the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's record of deceit [4] and advocacy of Sharia should be enough to establish that that argument is fallacious. And of course they'll be reading from the same Qur'an that inspired the 9/11 attacks; there is no "reformed" version.) The question is, if the shrine to the kamikazes were sponsored by a religious group, or Auschwitz were subject to First Amendment law, would there be no stopping the building of such things?"
"The primary argument in favor of construction of the mosque, of course, is that it is a matter of religious freedom. We are endlessly told that if Muslims are denied permission to build this mega-mosque at Ground Zero, the door will be opened to the denial of the construction of synagogues and churches elsewhere. That argument advances in ignorance of the political and supremacist character of Islamic law, qualities that have no parallel in Jewish or Christian doctrine, but even aside from that, the question of this mosque is not actually a religious freedom issue.
Why not? Because opponents of the mosque, be they Pamela Geller's group Stop Islamization Of America (SIOA), or Sarah Palin, or Rudy Giuliani, or Newt Gingrich, or anyone else, are not talking about banning mosques altogether. I do believe that mosques connected with the Saudis and/or the Muslim Brotherhood warrant careful scrutiny from law enforcement, but no one who is in the front line of the opposition to the mega-mosque at Ground Zero is calling for all mosques to be closed or for a ban on the construction of new mosques. And unless the property is marked as a war memorial, as it should be but will not be, no one is even calling for the expulsion of the Muslims who are currently praying in the existing former Burlington Coat Factory building at 45 Park Place; the Burlington Coat Factory is not a thirteen-story triumphal mega-mosque.
The question is, does the First Amendment really give every religious group the right to construct a house of worship wherever it wishes to do so? Is there never an occasion in which a location might be inappropriate? Many people have likened the construction of the mega-mosque at Ground Zero to the construction of a shrine to the kamikazes at Pearl Harbor or of a statue of Hitler outside the Auschwitz gates. Would the KKK be greenlighted to build a "reconciliation center" on the site of the 16th St. Baptist Church, as this parody [3] has it? (Others have rejected these comparisons based on the claim that the Cordoba Initiative leaders are "moderate" Muslims who hold to a radically different point of view from that of the Muslims who took down the Twin Towers on 9/11, but the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's record of deceit [4] and advocacy of Sharia should be enough to establish that that argument is fallacious. And of course they'll be reading from the same Qur'an that inspired the 9/11 attacks; there is no "reformed" version.) The question is, if the shrine to the kamikazes were sponsored by a religious group, or Auschwitz were subject to First Amendment law, would there be no stopping the building of such things?"
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
Stupid has a racist connotation? THats new to me.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Intolerance is referring to the 19 perpetrators of 9/11 as "Muslims" instead of "terrorists". "al-Qaeda hijackers", "radicals", "thugs", etc. It's a transparent attempt to demonize the religion instead of the attack. The people of NYC don't feel the mosque is inappropriate, possibly because Muslims were worshipping in NYC, in the general neighborhood of the Towers, for decades before the Towers even existed. People in Peoria, Savannah, Bismark, etc. are certainly entitled to their opinions. They just don't have a say-so re: what happens on the ground in NYC.
quite true, i think that all religions should be demonized equally
i do not particularly like looking at churches, temples and other forms of religious exhibition - seems that they are ignoring their effects on me
should religious institutions spend money on ostentation?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I read couple of good articles aboutthis muslim community center.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-mosque-ground-zero-20100808
"If American Muslims are allowed to build mosques only where Christians and Jews are gracious enough to allow, we will be proving the Islamists' point that the West is every... Muslim's enemy. If this mosque is blocked by popular prejudice or political demagoguery, that's when Bin Laden will claim a second victory — in the shadow, as they say, of ground zero."
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...7/the-truth-about-the-ground-zero-mosque.html
"In the neighborhood where it would sit, the opposition has been minimal. The local community board approved it overwhelmingly, and Ro Sheffe, chair of the boa...rd's financial district committee, tells me that "the vast majority of the people who live here are for it.""
And the best line....
"The Islamic Center will help meet the need. And the nature of the project undermines the notion that it's part of a Muslim holy war. What kind of jihadists want to spend their days mingling with infidels in Pilates class?"
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-mosque-ground-zero-20100808
"If American Muslims are allowed to build mosques only where Christians and Jews are gracious enough to allow, we will be proving the Islamists' point that the West is every... Muslim's enemy. If this mosque is blocked by popular prejudice or political demagoguery, that's when Bin Laden will claim a second victory — in the shadow, as they say, of ground zero."
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...7/the-truth-about-the-ground-zero-mosque.html
"In the neighborhood where it would sit, the opposition has been minimal. The local community board approved it overwhelmingly, and Ro Sheffe, chair of the boa...rd's financial district committee, tells me that "the vast majority of the people who live here are for it.""
And the best line....
"The Islamic Center will help meet the need. And the nature of the project undermines the notion that it's part of a Muslim holy war. What kind of jihadists want to spend their days mingling with infidels in Pilates class?"
I wouldn't know. However people want to worship is fine with me, even if it is ostentatious. I"d also make forms of worship that make victims of others (like little girls being forced to marry their Uncle or some such nonsense) illegal. Those people have a right not to be made into martyrs.
It's been fun playing Devil's Advocate, but I'm bored now.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Now you know,, so stop being racist!