Obama's support for Ground Zero Mosque

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Since when does freedom of religion extend the right to practice said religion any location they want? So if i run out on the field at a Phillies game but carry a prayer rug they will stop the game so I can pray to mecca and won't tase me? This has little to do with freedom of religion. It has a lot to do with the location of a building. That and an attempt (quite successful I might add) to garner as much publicity as possible.

it might start with the fact they own the property.

people look at this county and want to live here. we're supposed to stand for something here. people think they can come here for a better life, we're supposed to be almost a utopia. but because a fringe group of radical nutjobs did a horrific thing, no one who has a tie to the religion that group was supposedly practicing can live in peace? worship the way they wish? are you saying that a religion who has a criminal element should all be tarred with the same brush? should we tail all catholic priests, assuming they all have nefarious plans? if you say they have a right, i'm not quite sure why you're still arguing this point at all? because the majority is having a kneejerk, bigoted reaction, that makes it right? it's why you're supposed to use logic, not feelings. now, if osama bin laden wanted to build a place for his followers a couple blocks from ground zero, i can see having an issue. people not breaking the law and wanting to practice their religion peacably should be left alone. my god, we sound like hateful religions zealots on this issue-you know like the enemy...some righteous line being taken on this matter, it's embarrassing. are we not smart enough to know where a line is crossed? building a mosque is crossing a line?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it might start with the fact they own the property.

people look at this county and want to live here. we're supposed to stand for something here. people think they can come here for a better life, we're supposed to be almost a utopia. but because a fringe group of radical nutjobs did a horrific thing, no one who has a tie to the religion that group was supposedly practicing can live in peace? worship the way they wish? are you saying that a religion who has a criminal element should all be tarred with the same brush? should we tail all catholic priests, assuming they all have nefarious plans? if you say they have a right, i'm not quite sure why you're still arguing this point at all? because the majority is having a kneejerk, bigoted reaction, that makes it right? it's why you're supposed to use logic, not feelings. now, if osama bin laden wanted to build a place for his followers a couple blocks from ground zero, i can see having an issue. people not breaking the law and wanting to practice their religion peacably should be left alone. my god, we sound like hateful religions zealots on this issue-you know like the enemy...some righteous line being taken on this matter, it's embarrassing. are we not smart enough to know where a line is crossed? building a mosque is crossing a line?

I am using logic. Don't you think this mosque is going to be a hotspot for all kinds of protests and possible attacks? Is it right for the people in this neighborhood to be forced to have their own lives put more at risk? Especially when there are already hundreds of other places available? At some point aren't the rights of others that are negatively effected by the stubborness and insensitivty of these people protected as well? And please explain to me how you, me or anyone else can tell the difference between a mosque built by supporters of Al Queda or one built by non supporters? You have heard that the guys who originally bombed the WTC were locals (NJ) right?

As I have stated many times in this thread we aren't denying the right to build, nor are we saying that the intentions of the people of this mosque will be anything but peaceful, but that the location is a bad idea and people who don't understand why are simply not seeing the reality of the situation. Muslims terrorists have twice attacked this area, killing thousands of people. A Muslim terrorist attempted to bomb a car recently about 40 blocks away. Why anyone would be surprised that people are wary of a mosque being built there is amazing.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am using logic. Don't you think this mosque is going to be a hotspot for all kinds of protests and possible attacks? Is it right for the people in this neighborhood to be forced to have their own lives put more at risk? Especially when there are already hundreds of other places available?

I don't think your points are bad at all, I just disagree entirely, but the point above IS bad, IS terrible logic, and shouldn't hold any weight at all.

You're saying that if they build a mosque, some people will protest it or possibly attack it, so they shouldn't build it? It's been approved....by the people in the neighborhood, so you probably don't need to worry about them too much.

If people attack it, they're criminals and should be treated as such -- and therefore, you've got a criminal problem that is not the fault of the people building the mosque. And mosques have been attacked and vandalized in other states as well, so that holds no water whatsoever.

"Some people might break the law in retaliation" is not an argument for not building the mosque there. It's like saying we shouldn't build highways because some people might speed on it and endanger those are not breaking the law.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I don't think your points are bad at all, I just disagree entirely, but the point above IS bad, IS terrible logic, and shouldn't hold any weight at all.

You're saying that if they build a mosque, some people will protest it or possibly attack it, so they shouldn't build it? It's been approved....by the people in the neighborhood, so you probably don't need to worry about them too much.

If people attack it, they're criminals and should be treated as such -- and therefore, you've got a criminal problem that is not the fault of the people building the mosque. And mosques have been attacked and vandalized in other states as well, so that holds no water whatsoever.

"Some people might break the law in retaliation" is not an argument for not building the mosque there. It's like saying we shouldn't build highways because some people might speed on it and endanger those are not breaking the law.

You are ignoring that location isnt an ordinary location. While you are corrrect in that people who do such things are criminals and they are everywhere, the chances of an incident in this location are far greater than the same place just a short distance away.

The approval was a given. They cant discriminate on religious grounds, this has been established. That doesn't mean it is not going to be a source of issues.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are ignoring that location isnt an ordinary location. While you are corrrect in that people who do such things are criminals and they are everywhere, the chances of an incident in this location are far greater than the same place just a short distance away.

The approval was a given. They cant discriminate on religious grounds, this has been established. That doesn't mean it is not going to be a source of issues.

Still, it doesn't matter. Whether the location is in the woods in Montana or four blocks from Ground Zero, if people can't control themselves and NOT be criminals, that's 100% on them, no matter what.

You may sympathize with people who would like to throw a bomb or a brick through a window there, but the location doesn't make them anything less than common criminal trash if they can't be bothered to control their fear and anger and not lash out. Hold a sign, write an op-ed, whatever, but whether the location is "ordinary" or not is completely irrelevant.

You know what makes the "chances" of an "incident" go up with something like this? People who can't be bothered to act like respectable citizens and commit crimes instead. Trying to put the onus to avoid crime on the potential victim of the crime is patently absurd. I wonder how you feel about women walking alone in short skirts at night.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Still, it doesn't matter. Whether the location is in the woods in Montana or four blocks from Ground Zero, if people can't control themselves and NOT be criminals, that's 100% on them, no matter what.

You may sympathize with people who would like to throw a bomb or a brick through a window there, but the location doesn't make them anything less than common criminal trash if they can't be bothered to control their fear and anger and not lash out. Hold a sign, write an op-ed, whatever, but whether the location is "ordinary" or not is completely irrelevant.

You know what makes the "chances" of an "incident" go up with something like this? People who can't be bothered to act like respectable citizens and commit crimes instead. Trying to put the onus to avoid crime on the potential victim of the crime is patently absurd. I wonder how you feel about women walking alone in short skirts at night.

Please cast more stones. You and Riot continue to be unable to discuss an issue without trying to color others as something they are not. Pot meet kettle.

Acting as though this site isn't far different than almost every other site in the country seems silly. Just as Riot can't seem to come to grips with stating that Muslims terrorists have twice attacked the area doesn't mean you think all Muslims are terrorists, pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

This idealism believing that somehow all things are equal and the world is a logical place runs contrary to real life.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Please cast more stones. You and Riot continue to be unable to discuss an issue without trying to color others as something they are not. Pot meet kettle.

Acting as though this site isn't far different than almost every other site in the country seems silly. Just as Riot can't seem to come to grips with stating that Muslims terrorists have twice attacked the area doesn't mean you think all Muslims are terrorists, pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

This idealism believing that somehow all things are equal and the world is a logical place runs contrary to real life.

I'm not pretending that the site is not more likely to be attacked because of where it is. It certainly is, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to freely exercise their religion wherever they see fit without fear of being attacked. Mosques are targets in other parts of the country -- and they're only attacked because people commit crimes against them.

It doesn't matter one ounce where it is. If people don't act like criminals, then it won't get attacked -- that's the end of the story. Potential victims of crimes are not the ones responsible for making sure that they don't become victims of crimes. Do you know why crimes happen? Because criminals commit them. Period. No amount of emotion based on location or past events absolves criminals of that responsibility, and the people building in this location are not, and should not, be responsible for those who may commit crimes against them.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

Really though -- how far is the acceptable buffer zone where they won't be responsible for the attacks criminals commit against them? How far away until they're not asking for it?

Is Memphis far enough away? Dayton? Jacksonville? Winston-Salem? Texas? Winnipeg? Maybe Sweden?

The reason mosques get attacked is because trash criminals can't control themselves.....not because where they're built. Trying to say that they have a responsibility to go somewhere else is just a backdoor way of essentially making it so that criminals aren't responsible for their own actions, I mean, if ONLY they hadn't shoved it in everyone's faces and built it there.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Please cast more stones. You and Riot continue to be unable to discuss an issue without trying to color others as something they are not. Pot meet kettle.

Acting as though this site isn't far different than almost every other site in the country seems silly.

See, again, it's obviously not a meaningful site to them. They aren't that bent about it. Just another damn tourist attraction to these people. This is the main reason they don't have a problem with the zoning choice. if you don't care why something happened, then why would you care about the zoning in the aftermath? They don't particularly care about the specifics involved with the disaster (at all.) That might mean having to place guilt on someone, and then actually doing something about it. Just ignore the root cause, because it'd be hell for someone's feelings to get hurt.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Please cast more stones. You and Riot continue to be unable to discuss an issue without trying to color others as something they are not. Pot meet kettle.

Acting as though this site isn't far different than almost every other site in the country seems silly. Just as Riot can't seem to come to grips with stating that Muslims terrorists have twice attacked the area doesn't mean you think all Muslims are terrorists, pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

This idealism believing that somehow all things are equal and the world is a logical place runs contrary to real life.

again, why is the site incendiary? recognizing the religion of the perpetrators, while failing to consider that islamic people were also victims in this attack is ignoring fact. if a church wants to honor it's dead, that's ok...but a mosque wants to reach out in that area, it's wrong. that ignores the fact that muslims were victims that day, not just christians.


i'm really just surprised that this thread is so long, considering everyone concedes they have a right to build there. i heard today that the idiots who protest at funerals have been shown to have the right, due to free speech laws. it's unpalatable, shows insensitivity, but can't be blocked without being unconstitutional.

the rule of law must prevail. you can't disallow this building, i don't understand why so many are so vocal about this, when there's really nowhere to stand against it.
all nyc can do about this is to change the zoning, and i don't see that happening.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it might start with the fact they own the property.

people look at this county and want to live here. we're supposed to stand for something here. people think they can come here for a better life, we're supposed to be almost a utopia. but because a fringe group of radical nutjobs did a horrific thing, no one who has a tie to the religion that group was supposedly practicing can live in peace? worship the way they wish? are you saying that a religion who has a criminal element should all be tarred with the same brush?

Well, they do all go by what the same butcher had to say. I'd like to hear them make an effort to separate themselves from the terrorists, rather than you doing it. This Imam has said that America was partially to blame for 9/11. Right there, you should have a problem with this, but you don't. See, he won't come out and say the scum in his religion were wrong, and they are to blame.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well, they do all go by what the same butcher had to say. I'd like to hear them make an effort to separate themselves from the terrorists, rather than you doing it. This Imam has said that America was partially to blame for 9/11. Right there, you should have a problem with this, but you don't. See, he won't come out and say the scum in his religion were wrong, and they are to blame.

i don't? when did i say that? that would be like saying a robbed bank was partially at fault because they had all that money and were asking for it.
and i have seen where members of that religion have spoken out against the terrorist acts, but you keep ignoring that. not once have you conceded that point, accepted that it has happened.


but you're right about zoning. if there is no other similar building in that area, the city can re-zone. whether they can do so and get away with it, i don't know. if other religious buildings are in that area, they haven't got a leg to stand on in that regard.