Ground Zero Mosque

[GODKING]

Just to through some beans out there GODKING:

 

You speak of Christian values and morals. What makes them exactly Christian. A similar group that has no basis in Christianity could still have the same values and morals. It is like a comparison I made a long time ago and it went something like this: A Muslim can be Arab but not all Arabs are Muslim. I am posing the same comparison to what you call Christian morals and values.

 

What religious or non-religious group shares these values and or morals

[JediMaster12]

I have Muslim friends, practicing and in name, and I understand where the Doc is coming from. The point is that the men who attacked the WTC were not representatives of Islam at all. I actually have read translated portions of the Koran and was more entranced by the poetry. If I were fluent in the formal Arabic, then I would appreciate it more.

 

Like any religious group, there will always be those individuals who will take the word of their god and use it in a way that would allow them to justify violence. It is a similar ploy used in colonialism.

 

What religious or non-religious group shares these values and or morals[/Quote]

 

Any cultural group has their own set of values and rules of behavior but they are not always unique. There are usually rules about certain acts like murder and such things like that. A member who breaks the rules is made to be an outcast. All cultural groups have some morals and they aren't really that much different.

[The Doctor]

I have one question out of all your friends are any Moderate Muslims because you sure do know a lot about what they think and how they view their religion?!?

Yes actually, my brother converted to Islam early last year and I've talked to a good number of the friends of his who turned him to the religion.

 

I AGREE THAT THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY! The moderate/normal Muslims just do not do a good job at giving anyone else comfort that they don't feel the same way that the extremists do. I mean, hey, if they want people to misjudge them, that's fine...but if they ever want perceptions to change, they should do a better job at speaking out against these extremists and trying to understand where WE'RE coming from.

And I will say yet again that neither do a large proportion of moderate/normal Christians do a good job at the very same thing. I'll also say again that if you and your priests/spiritual leaders won't go on television to speak against radical Christian viewpoints - something you just claimed to not feel was required of you - I don't see how you can in good conscience demand that these Muslims do the same. We're supposed to take your word for it, but demand proof from them? Ridiculous, simply ridiculous.

[JediMaster12]

Collective insanity Doc. It is a convenient excuse to feed the ego. At least that is my perspective after a quarter mulling through Tolle.

[GODKING]

I have Muslim friends, practicing and in name, and I understand where the Doc is coming from. The point is that the men who attacked the WTC were not representatives of Islam at all. I actually have read translated portions of the Koran and was more entranced by the poetry. If I were fluent in the formal Arabic, then I would appreciate it more.

 

Like any religious group, there will always be those individuals who will take the word of their god and use it in a way that would allow them to justify violence. It is a similar ploy used in colonialism.

 

But you see you actually have met a Muslim and you most likely know his views on his religion and stuff of that nature. And is it Kran or Koran i always thought it was Kran, but i maybe wrong... What I was saying and what I think yourluckyday was saying is that if the Muslims that don't see the way these "extremist" do than everything would be okay, but they don't denounce such teachings and way of practicing religion it is like saying it is okay. If they would just say that we don't support this extremist in anyway than it would kill the fire that all muslims see us the same way as infidels.

 

Plus i personally think that if moderate muslims (as somone likes to refer to them as) would denounce this extremist teachings and practices than this extremist can't say they are back by the muslims people or something like that. Without Muslims backing them up these extremist are nothing

[The Doctor]

But you see you actually have met a Muslim and you most likely know his views on his religion and stuff of that nature. And is it Kran or Koran i always thought it was Kran, but i maybe wrong... What I was saying and what I think yourluckyday was saying is that if the Muslims that don't see the way these "extremist" do than everything would be okay, but they don't denounce such teachings and way of practicing religion it is like saying it is okay. If they would just say that we don't support this extremist in anyway than it would kill the fire that all muslims see us the same way as infidels.

 

Plus i personally think that if moderate muslims (as somone likes to refer to them as) would denounce this extremist teachings and practices than this extremist can't say they are back by the muslims people or something like that. Without Muslims backing them up these extremist are nothing

How about you use your common sense?

 

• The extremists we're talking about see all non-Muslims as infidels, who insult their God with every breath they draw.
  
• In order to rectify what they see as the source of the problem, these extremists attempt to murder any and all infidels they can find. They call this their struggle, or a jihad.
  
• Now, look at the Muslims behind this community centre. They are moderate Muslims interested in opening a multi-faith centre. That means its doors would be open to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, or anyone else.
  
• The peoples of these faiths are, by the definition of the extremists, "infidels". Those behind this community centre are not only willing to associate with these "infidels", but are actually fighting to be freely able do so.

Wishing to associate openly and publicly with us "infidels" in a peaceful and welcoming environment is about as far from what the extremists behind 9/11 would want. Ergo, the poor persecuted souls trying to open this centre are not supportive of or in agreement with the extremists. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

[urluckyday]

We're supposed to take your word for it, but demand proof from them? Ridiculous, simply ridiculous.

 

And I'll say once again...it was a group of Muslim extremists who did and continue to attack America.

[The Doctor]

And I'll say once again...it was a group of Muslim extremists who did and continue to attack America.

I thought you said you "AGREE THAT [MUSLIM EXTREMISTS] ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY!"? So what does it matter that the people behind 9/11 happen to be extremists of the same religion as the folks behind the community centre?

 

It's a group of Christian extremists who did and continue to attack innocent men and women in abortion clinics, or who continually persecute black men and women in the southern states. But no one's about to protest when the YMCA wants to open a new centre in Dallas, Texas. This situation is absolutely no different. Unless you're a bigot, in which case I fully understand, even if I don't agree with, such baseless and ignorant opposition to improved inter-faith relations.

[GODKING]

How about you use your common sense?

 

• The extremists we're talking about see all non-Muslims as infidels, who insult their God with every breath they draw.
  
• In order to rectify what they see as the source of the problem, these extremists attempt to murder any and all infidels they can find. They call this their struggle, or a jihad.
  
• Now, look at the Muslims behind this community centre. They are moderate Muslims interested in opening a multi-faith centre. That means its doors would be open to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, or anyone else.
  
• The peoples of these faiths are, by the definition of the extremists, "infidels". Those behind this community centre are not only willing to associate with these "infidels", but are actually fighting to be freely able do so.

Wishing to associate openly and publicly with us "infidels" in a peaceful and welcoming environment is about as far from what the extremists behind 9/11 would want. Ergo, the poor persecuted souls trying to open this centre are not supportive of or in agreement with the extremists. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

 

Before I start agruing some more how old are you? I have been wondering this the whole time.

 

For one everyone is a infidel by the definition of a infidel is a person who doubts or rejects the central teaching of a religion and infidel is an ENGLISH word. It was first used by the church to describe non christians or enemys of the church. If you believe in one religion you are an infidel because you doubt another religion or you reject it. And if you don't have a religion than your also a infidel.

 

You still don't see that these people want to better the community right? Well, its obvious if they build their not many non-muslims are going to go, but if they built maybe a few more blocks down don't you think it would show some RESPECT and it would be an okay compromise. Someone with some COMMON SENSE WOULD REALIZE THIS!

[The Doctor]

Before I start agruing some more how old are you? I have been wondering this the whole time.

I'm 21, if it makes any difference.

 

For one everyone is a infidel by the definition of a infidel is a person who doubts or rejects the central teaching of a religion and infidel is an ENGLISH word. It was first used by the church to describe none christians or enemys of the church. If you believe in one religion you are an infidel because you doubt another religion or you reject it. And if you don't have a religion than your also a infidel.

Okay, fine, that really doesn't make a single bit of difference to my main point. If it'll make you feel better, though, I can go back and edit the post so as not to use the word. It won't change the validity of my argument whatsoever.

 

You still don't see that these people want to better the community right? Well, its obvious if they build their not many non-muslims are going to go, but if they built maybe a few more blocks down don't you think it would show some RESPECT and it would be an okay compromise. Someone with some COMMON SENSE WOULD REALIZE THIS!

To whom is it obvious that "not many non-muslims are going to go"? To you, maybe, but I have more faith in the tolerance of the general community than you seem to. Maybe because I actually practise tolerance, where you don't seem to want to do so.

 

How is it disrespectful to want to build a peaceful inter-faith community centre where there already existed a Muslim place of worship? If anyone but a Muslim wanted to do this very same thing, no one would have a problem with it whatsoever. But because the poor man is Muslim, he's being unfairly attacked and his motives baselessly questioned. That's bigotry and racism.

[urluckyday]

I thought you said you "AGREE THAT [MUSLIM EXTREMISTS] ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY!"? So what does it matter that the people behind 9/11 happen to be extremists of the same religion as the folks behind the community centre?

 

It's a group of Christian extremists who did and continue to attack innocent men and women in abortion clinics, or who continually persecute black men and women in the southern states. But no one's about to protest when the YMCA wants to open a new centre in Dallas, Texas. This situation is absolutely no different. Unless you're a bigot, in which case I fully understand, even if I don't agree with, such baseless and ignorant opposition to improved inter-faith relations.

 

Well, you've created the perfect argument...because no matter what...whoever doesn't agree with you is a bigot.

[GODKING]

I'm 21, if it makes any difference.

 

 

Okay, fine, that really doesn't make a single bit of difference to my main point.

 

 

To whom is it obvious that "not many non-muslims are going to go"? To you, maybe, but I have more faith in the tolerance of the general community than you seem to. Maybe because I actually practise tolerance, where you don't seem to want to do so.

 

How is it disrespectful to want to build a peaceful inter-faith community centre where there already existed a Muslim place of worship? If anyone but a Muslim wanted to do this very same thing, no one would have a problem with it whatsoever. But because the poor man is Muslim, he's being unfairly attacked and his motives baselessly questioned. That's bigotry and racism.

 

HAHA, you think I'm naive because of my age your only 21.

 

Your point of view is biased because your brother is "muslim"

 

And your being very stupid racism is having hatred toward a race (a race is a genetic factors that a certain people have like skin, hair, eyes all contribute to your race.) not RELIGION!

 

Another thing you still didn't deny would be if he would just move his community center to a different location; maybe a few more blocks away people would be happy and everyone wins.

 

And one more thing you said something about me not living in Manhantten my dad (parents divorce) lives in New York soooo...

 

And you are a bigot because you are being don't pratice tolerance because you are not being tolerance to my opinion and the millions of American who are protesting this. I show tolerance to muslims, but is this "poor" muslim really going to hurt if he moves the new "Community Center" a few more blocks away. Its obvious that the "COMMUNITY" DOESN'T want it there. And yes people in New York are the ones who brought this to the public attention.

 

Don't you think if he moved it a few blocks down it would really be a COMMUNITY CENTER because it is where the community wants it not where one muslims man wants it. He then when be showing RESPECT to the people of New York by doing this kind deed and moving it a few blocks away

[urluckyday]

Isn't there an existing mosque already close to ground zero anyway?

[mimartin]

Another thing you still didn't deny would be if he would just move his community center to a different location; maybe a few more blocks away people would be happy and everyone wins.

How about 2 blocks? Oh wait, it is already the proposed civic center is already 2 blocks away.

 

Isn't there an existing mosque already close to ground zero anyway?

 

Yes there is. Also as already pointed out in this very thread there is a Mosque at the other site of an attacked on 09/11. The Pentagon.

[The Doctor]

HAHA, you think I'm naive because of my age your only 21.

You also can't manage to type a fully coherent sentence, a fact that's been self-proven multiple times in this thread alone. Even at 16 I was more coherent than you. So forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

 

Your point of view is biased because your brother is "muslim"

You ask me to prove that I know, and am not just guessing at, the opinion of a particular group. When I give you that proof, I'm suddenly biased? How the **** does that work?

 

And your being very stupid racism is having hatred toward a race (a race is a genetic factors that a certain people have like skin, hair, eyes all contribute to your race.) not RELIGION!

See definition number 3, please.

 

Another thing you still didn't deny would be if he would just move his community center to a different location; maybe a few more blocks away people would be happy and everyone wins.

No, you bigots and fear mongers would win. The poor man who just wants to open a damned YMCA doesn't win; he's been attacked, criticised, insulted, and forced to relocate for no good or valid reason. How is that a victory for him? Show me the victory.

 

And one more thing you said something about me not living in Manhantten my dad (parents divorce) lives in New York soooo...

Yes, but does he live in Manhattan? Bah, it doesn't matter anyway - your dad living in New York means you're biased. Thanks for playing, was nice talking to you, hope to see you somewhere else real soon.

 

 

And you are a bigot because you are being don't pratice tolerance because you are not being tolerance to my opinion and the millions of American who are protesting this. I show tolerance to muslims, but is this "poor" muslim really going to hurt if he moves the new "Community Center" a few more blocks away. Its obvious that the "COMMUNITY" DOESN'T want it there.

So I'm intolerant... for not supporting intolerance. Could you be any more ****ed up? I'm not being intolerant of your opinion. I'm not saying you have to move to your own thread to post with like-minded people just because you disagree with me. And I'm certainly not demanding you move your opinions to another thread based on your arbitrary affiliation to Christian extremists - after all, a lot of Christians have been hurt and persecuted around here, and your posting support for their viewpoint(s) might upset people.

 

I tolerate your opinion and agree with your right to it; that doesn't mean I'm not supposed to debate the point with you. You're just being ridiculous now.

 

And yes people in New York are the ones who brought this to the public attention.

 

Wrong. According to Wiki:

 

"Protests were sparked by a campaign launched by conservative bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, founders of the group Stop Islamization of America."

 

Check your facts, kid.

 

Don't you think if he moved it a few blocks down it would really be a COMMUNITY CENTER because it is where the community wants it not where one muslims man wants it. He then when be showing RESPECT to the people of New York by doing this kind deed and moving it a few blocks away

Don't you think that demanding he do so just because he happens to be distantly tied to Muslim extremists to be insane, offensive, and incredibly insensitive? Even paranoid? I'll rephrase another question that no one seems to have answered yet: would anyone be asking this man to move his community centre if he were Hindu, or Buddhist? No. Why should the fact that he's Muslim make any difference, so long as he's not an extremist - which he quite clearly isn't? Oh, yeah, that's right, it shouldn't.

 

You also seem to be conveniently overlooking one key fact: that while yes, a good number of Americans and even New Yorkers themselves are opposed to the building of the centre, they are also well aware of the man's right to construct it regardless of their opposition or support. That's what America is about, after all - freedom. Or is that just a line you guys have been feeding the rest of the world for the last few centuries?

[urluckyday]

That's what America is about, after all - freedom. Or is that just a line you guys have been feeding the rest of the world for the last few centuries?

 

Wait...so you're arguing this fact having never been in America for an extended period of time?

[The Doctor]

Well, you've created the perfect argument...because no matter what...whoever doesn't agree with you is a bigot.

Not at all. Whoever uses unfounded fears and misinformed opinions to baselessly opposes a man's Constitutional freedom of expression and religion and demands unfair changes to the location of a multi-faith civic community centre is a bigot. Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier, by the way. Hadn't seen it.

 

Wait...so you're arguing this fact having never been in America for an extended period of time?

A marvel of a strawman my friend: you've ignored the meat of my post to pick on one little detail that really has no significant impact on the discussion whatsoever. But yes, I suppose I am. After having spent the last 21 years watching 80% American television and hearing American news and opinions, the entirety of my schooling in the subject of history having multiple units on American history as well as Canadian, and spending the last ten years in the company of as many American contacts/friends as Canadian ones (some years even more American friends online than Canadian ones at school), I'm arguing that America was founded on the ideas of social, political, and religious freedom.

 

But I haven't lived in the country for any stretch of time. Tell me though, am I wrong? Have I grossly misunderstood the entire basis of American society? Or is your strawman just falling over? Yeah, yeah I think it is.

[urluckyday]

Not at all. Whoever uses unfounded fears and misinformed opinions to baselessly opposes a man's Constitutional freedom of expression and religion and demands unfair changes to the location of a multi-faith civic community centre is a bigot. Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier, by the way. Hadn't seen it.

 

 

A marvel of a strawman my friend: you've ignored the meat of my post to pick on one little detail that really has no significant impact on the discussion whatsoever. But yes, I suppose I am. After having spent the last 21 years watching 80% American television and hearing American news and opinions, the entirety of my schooling in the subject of history having multiple units on American history as well as Canadian, and spending the last ten years in the company of as many American contacts/friends as Canadian ones (some years even more American friends online than Canadian ones at school), I'm arguing that America was founded on the ideas of social, political, and religious freedom.

 

But I haven't lived in the country for any stretch of time. Tell me though, am I wrong? Have I grossly misunderstood the entire basis of American society? Or is your strawman just falling over? Yeah, yeah I think it is.

 

Never said I opposed the mosque, but you called me a bigot regardless. In any case, I'm done with condescending answers. It's been a pleasure talking to you about this topic.

[The Doctor]

Never said I opposed the mosque community centre, but you called me a bigot regardless. In any case, I'm done with condescending answers. It's been a pleasure talking to you about this topic.

The pleasure was all mine. And maybe a little bit of Lynk Former's. But don't quote me on that.

[urluckyday]

The pleasure was all mine. And maybe a little bit of Lynk Former's. But don't quote me on that.

 

whatever man. Stay classy San Diego.

[GODKING]

You also can't manage to type a fully coherent sentence, a fact that's been self-proven multiple times in this thread alone. Even at 16 I was more coherent than you. So forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

 

 

You ask me to prove that I know, and am not just guessing at, the opinion of a particular group. When I give you that proof, I'm suddenly biased? How the **** does that work?

 

 

See definition number 3, please.

 

 

No, you bigots and fear mongers would win. The poor man who just wants to open a damned YMCA doesn't win; he's been attacked, criticised, insulted, and forced to relocate for no good or valid reason. How is that a victory for him? Show me the victory.

 

 

Yes, but does he live in Manhattan? Bah, it doesn't matter anyway - your dad living in New York means you're biased. Thanks for playing, was nice talking to you, hope to see you somewhere else real soon.

 

 

 

So I'm intolerant... for not supporting intolerance. Could you be any more ****ed up? I'm not being intolerant of your opinion. I'm not saying you have to move to your own thread to post with like-minded people just because you disagree with me. And I'm certainly not demanding you move your opinions to another thread based on your arbitrary affiliation to Christian extremists - after all, a lot of Christians have been hurt and persecuted around here, and your posting support for their viewpoint(s) might upset people.

 

I tolerate your opinion and agree with your right to it; that doesn't mean I'm not supposed to debate the point with you. You're just being ridiculous now.

 

 

 

Wrong. According to Wiki:

 

"Protests were sparked by a campaign launched by conservative bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, founders of the group Stop Islamization of America."

 

Check your facts, kid.

 

 

Don't you think that demanding he do so just because he happens to be distantly tied to Muslim extremists to be insane, offensive, and incredibly insensitive? Even paranoid? I'll rephrase another question that no one seems to have answered yet: would anyone be asking this man to move his community centre if he were Hindu, or Buddhist? No. Why should the fact that he's Muslim make any difference, so long as he's not an extremist - which he quite clearly isn't? Oh, yeah, that's right, it shouldn't.

 

You also seem to be conveniently overlooking one key fact: that while yes, a good number of Americans and even New Yorkers themselves are opposed to the building of the centre, they are also well aware of the man's right to construct it regardless of their opposition or support. That's what America is about, after all - freedom. Or is that just a line you guys have been feeding the rest of the world for the last few centuries?

 

First off your brother being Muslim makes you completely biased if your brother wasn't muslim their is a chance that you wouldn't be as tolerance as you say you are toward Muslims.

 

These people are trying to get this person to put his "YMCA" in a different location. And the Government has the authority to seize land if they want. Its called Eminent domain. Its in the fifth amendment. And yes he does have the right to build there

 

No one is forcing him to move I just said it is a option. Him moving to a different location is a win-win because people are going to be happy that he honored their wishes of moving to a different location. Do you really want to anger the people of the city your opening your business in? He will please the people of the town where he is opening his COMMUNITY CENTER. If it is really a community center then he should want whats best for the community not what his own pride is saying. Plus when you open a business you have to make decision you don't want to make sometimes. That is what needs to think about what is best for his business.

 

You keep saying what if this what if that. We are talking about a Muslims Community Center not a Hindu or Buddist one. HERE IS A WHAT IF FOR YOU What if a church wanted to build right beside the Mosque do you think he would be upset or offended to say the least. Do you see what im getting at? He would be offended just the same. Or what if a christian extremist went nuts and blew up a Muslim Building and kill thousands of Muslims then years later Christians decided to build a big Church a few blocks away do you think the Muslim Community would be outraged? Or they decided to build a Christian Community Center and say everyones invited.

 

And like i said before this man has the right to build here yes as long as he owns the land and has the correct building permits, but just because he has the right to doesn't mean it would be best for his community center/buisness. People have to make decisions all the time that they don't want to make, but they still do. This is the same principle.

 

PS: I dont think Wiki is the best source because it is allowed to be changed by anyone.

And i take back what i said about the racist thing. You were right i apologize

[Sabretooth]

You keep saying what if this what if that. We are talking about a Muslims Community Center not a Hindu or Buddist one. HERE IS A WHAT IF FOR YOU What if a church wanted to build right beside the Mosque do you think he would be upset or offended to say the least. Do you see what im getting at? He would be offended just the same. Or what if a christian extremist went nuts and blew up a Muslim Building and kill thousands of Muslims then years later Christians decided to build a big Church a few blocks away do you think the Muslim Community would be outraged? Or they decided to build a Christian Community Center and say everyones invited.

I think, GODKING, that your argument relies on the assumption that rage is both natural and encourageable in communities and rather than confronting it and trying to smooth it over, it is better to avoid it altogether.

 

And like i said before this man has the right to build here yes as long as he owns the land and has the correct building permits, but just because he has the right to doesn't mean it would be best for his community center/buisness. People have to make decisions all the time that they don't want to make, but they still do. This is the same principle.

Well, isn't that his own, private problem then? After all, it's his business.

 

PS: I dont think Wiki is the best source because it is allowed to be changed by anyone.

Most statements in Wiki, especially on the more popular articles, are backed up by references. It isn't really the shifty mass of a sinkhole that most people make it out to be.

[The Doctor]

First off your brother being Muslim makes you completely biased if your brother wasn't muslim their is a chance that you wouldn't be as tolerance as you say you are toward Muslims.

If your father didn't live in New York then maybe you wouldn't be as intolerant as you seem to be. Do you see how completely and utterly ridiculous that train of thought is yet, or are you going to keep up the outrageously fallacious talking points?

 

These people are trying to get this person to put his "YMCA" in a different location. And the Government has the authority to seize land if they want. Its called Eminent domain. Its in the fifth amendment. And yes he does have the right to build there

Sure, yeah. The government has the authority. The government has always had the authority. Right from day one. So why haven't they exercised it yet? Could it be that they know they'd be violating the man's first amendment rights by doing so? Could it be that Constitutional law is a little more complicated than simply saying "it's in the Fifth!"?

 

No one is forcing him to move I just said it is a option. Him moving to a different location is a win-win because people are going to be happy that he honored their wishes of moving to a different location. Do you really want to anger the people of the city your opening your business in? He will please the people of the town where he is opening his COMMUNITY CENTER. If it is really a community center then he should want whats best for the community not what his own pride is saying. Plus when you open a business you have to make decision you don't want to make sometimes. That is what needs to think about what is best for his business.

Manhattan alone has a population of ~1,639,000 people. The whole of New York City has a population of ~8,392,000 people. Let's give an insanely generous estimate of 75% of them who will refuse to go to the centre, for whatever reasons. That means that ~6,294,000 will never set foot in this community centre. But that still leaves ~2,098,000 people in the city of New York who would still conceivably pay the centre at least one visit. I think that's more than enough of a customer base to be getting on with, particularly considering the generous mathematical conditions I've used here.

 

You keep saying what if this what if that. We are talking about a Muslims Community Center not a Hindu or Buddist one. HERE IS A WHAT IF FOR YOU What if a church wanted to build right beside the Mosque do you think he would be upset or offended to say the least. Do you see what im getting at? He would be offended just the same. Or what if a christian extremist went nuts and blew up a Muslim Building and kill thousands of Muslims then years later Christians decided to build a big Church a few blocks away do you think the Muslim Community would be outraged? Or they decided to build a Christian Community Center and say everyones invited.

Wrong. We're talking about a multi-faith community centre that happens to have been proposed by a Muslim.

 

Do you know this man? Where do you get off assuming he would be upset about a Christian Church opening up next door? The entire basis of his proposed community centre is the improvement of inter-faith relations. I would think he'd be thrilled if Christians opened a Church nearby, Jews a Synagogue, Buddhists and Hindus their respective temples, etc. It would make for a nearly unprecedented unification of faith, compassion, and peace surrounding a site of horrific, hate-drive attack. The perfect slap in the face to all extremists, not just the Muslims who attacked the WTC.

 

The construction of a Christian Church a few blocks from a hypothetical extremist attack on the Muslim people does not in any way equate to the construction of an inter-faith civic centre built a few blocks from the location of a real attack on a secular government building.

 

And like i said before this man has the right to build here yes as long as he owns the land and has the correct building permits, but just because he has the right to doesn't mean it would be best for his community center/buisness. People have to make decisions all the time that they don't want to make, but they still do. THis is the same principle.

And just because you don't think it's the "best thing" for his proposed centre doesn't make it so. I've just mathematically proven that the business end of it could be maintained just fine even with a very generous model of opposition.

 

Have you ever stopped and considered this man's potential motives for wanting to build such a centre? It seems to me that he desperately wants to promote inter-faith peace in a community ripped apart by religious differences. What better place for such a symbol of peace and community than near where the greatest act of terrorism in modern history was committed?

 

You say you want him to move it further away. Okay. Let's assume he does. Let's say he moves it to six blocks away, and assume for the sake of argument that six blocks is a respectful enough distance in your personal opinion. Then someone else comes along and says that six blocks isn't far enough, it needs to be at least ten. Then someone else still comes along and says that no, it needs to be eighteen blocks. Then someone finally says that building it in Manhattan is offensive no matter how many blocks away it is. Another person says anywhere in New York City is still too close. Then New York State.

 

Where do we draw the line? Who do we displease? What ideals do we choose to support and which ones do we decide don't apply to this situation?

 

PS: I dont think Wiki is the best source because it is allowed to be changed by anyone.

Wiki is fine when the information provided is sufficiently sourced. When the page the information came from is locked to edits from un- or newly-registered users, like the Park51 article, the sources are generally retained and the cohesion of the article maintained.

 

And i take back what i said about the racist thing. You were right i apologize

Apology accepted.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Perhaps unrelated but good to lighten the mood, nevertheless.(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

[GODKING]

If your father didn't live in New York then maybe you wouldn't be as intolerant as you seem to be. Do you see how completely and utterly ridiculous that train of thought is yet, or are you going to keep up the outrageously fallacious talking points?

 

 

Sure, yeah. The government has the authority. The government has always had the authority. Right from day one. So why haven't they exercised it yet? Could it be that they know they'd be violating the man's first amendment rights by doing so? Could it be that Constitutional law is a little more complicated than simply saying "it's in the Fifth!"?

 

 

Manhattan alone has a population of ~1,639,000 people. The whole of New York City has a population of ~8,392,000 people. Let's give an insanely generous estimate of 75% of them who will refuse to go to the centre, for whatever reasons. That means that ~6,294,000 will never set foot in this community centre. But that still leaves ~2,098,000 people in the city of New York who would still conceivably pay the centre at least one visit. I think that's more than enough of a customer base to be getting on with, particularly considering the generous mathematical conditions I've used here.

 

 

Wrong. We're talking about a multi-faith community centre that happens to have been proposed by a Muslim.

 

Do you know this man? Where do you get off assuming he would be upset about a Christian Church opening up next door? The entire basis of his proposed community centre is the improvement of inter-faith relations. I would think he'd be thrilled if Christians opened a Church nearby, Jews a Synagogue, Buddhists and Hindus their respective temples, etc. It would make for a nearly unprecedented unification of faith, compassion, and peace surrounding a site of horrific, hate-drive attack. The perfect slap in the face to all extremists, not just the Muslims who attacked the WTC.

 

The construction of a Christian Church a few blocks from a hypothetical extremist attack on the Muslim people does not in any way equate to the construction of an inter-faith civic centre built a few blocks from the location of a real attack on a secular government building.

 

 

And just because you don't think it's the "best thing" for his proposed centre doesn't make it so. I've just mathematically proven that the business end of it could be maintained just fine even with a very generous model of opposition.

 

Have you ever stopped and considered this man's potential motives for wanting to build such a centre? It seems to me that he desperately wants to promote inter-faith peace in a community ripped apart by religious differences. What better place for such a symbol of peace and community than near where the greatest act of terrorism in modern history was committed?

 

You say you want him to move it further away. Okay. Let's assume he does. Let's say he moves it to six blocks away, and assume for the sake of argument that six blocks is a respectful enough distance in your personal opinion. Then someone else comes along and says that six blocks isn't far enough, it needs to be at least ten. Then someone else still comes along and says that no, it needs to be eighteen blocks. Then someone finally says that building it in Manhattan is offensive no matter how many blocks away it is. Another person says anywhere in New York City is still too close. Then New York State.

 

Where do we draw the line? Who do we displease? What ideals do we choose to support and which ones do we decide don't apply to this situation?

 

 

Wiki is fine when the information provided is sufficiently sourced. When the page the information came from is locked to edits from un- or newly-registered users, like the Park51 article, the sources are generally retained and the cohesion of the article maintained.

 

 

Apology accepted.

 

First of all 6 blocks sounds pretty good to me. And you said where do we draw the line? Its not us thats draws the line its is the owner if i was him i would consult with my finiancial advisor and see where would be a suitable location that is still profitable. In your calculations is 6 blocks farther away really going to hurt his business no.

 

And this place is suspose to be a place of Religious Tolerance and bring Religions together and understand each other. Don't you think in this giantic building they could have a room that could represent each religion for example: church, mosque, synagogue, etc. don't you think that would be a TRUE place of Religious Tolerance. Do you think honestly putting one mosque in a place filled with a pool a 500 seat auditorium really represents Religious Tolerance?