Ground Zero Mosque

[Lord of Hunger]

I know your age. I know I am twice your age. That alone is sufficient qualification for making some of these judgments, as you will someday understand. You may have had incredible life experiences... I don't doubt you have... but you haven't had that many of them. You have only been "doing your own thing" for a couple of years. I don't need to know you to know the average accumulated life experience of a 19yo.

You are still equivocating your experience to mine, then claiming the supremacy of your experience based on sheer amount. I am not saying that I am more intelligent, equally intelligent, or less intelligent than you. I don't believe that should be an issue. The only thing that matters in this thread is the quality of the arguments presented.

 

Also, why does it matter to you personally? You are not my parent or guardian, or in anyway responsible for policing my ability to post.

Right, that is why you have some of the smartest minds in the forum plugging away at your arguments, really quite effectively shredding them, yet you come back for more, and always with your smarmy condescension. You are either a troll, or you are irresistible troll-bait.

That's what you perceive. Granted, the people I have debated in this thread are obviously individuals of high intellect, but that does not mean that they are correct about everything. Once you assume that arguments are only measurable by status, then there is no point in having such a debate anyway.

 

And if you perceive me to be condescending, then I am sorry if I have created that perception. I am, however, no troll and have attempted to make my arguments as intelligent and respectful as possible. However, since you and several others INSIST that I am somehow an ignorant troll then I will make this my last post in this thread.

Nah... just quoting the constitution, the basis of U.S. society. The constitution has spoken for me long ago on this matter, to the point that until yesterday, this thread held no interest to me.... it is a moot point.

Incorrect. You quoted an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, specifically a part of the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is an importance in the distinction. The base Constitution is the direct intent of the Founding Fathers, whereas the Bill of Rights are augmentations made to address concerns by several other members. Also, these civil rights are not actual civil rights so much as limitations on the Federal Government's ability to suspend them. That does NOT mean I support any suspension of civil rights, but it is very important to actually be aware of the distinction.

[Ping]

@Toten: I was not implying anything. I did, however, mean "some," not "all." There's no need to take things out of proportion simply because I left a word out.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

You are still equivocating your experience to mine, then claiming the supremacy of your experience based on sheer amount. I am not saying that I am more intelligent, equally intelligent, or less intelligent than you. I don't believe that should be an issue. The only thing that matters in this thread is the quality of the arguments presented.

Are you sure you know what equivocation means? I can say without any argument from any party that I have more life experience than you. That is a totally different argument than your equivocation of experience to intelligence.

Also, why does it matter to you personally? You are not my parent or guardian, or in anyway responsible for policing my ability to post.

Correct. I am free to point out that you are on overly self-impressed young mind who's intelligence has outlasted any sense of humility, and to dismiss your arguments as foolish when they are, loudly if I feel like it.

Incorrect. You quoted an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, specifically a part of the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is an importance in the distinction. The base Constitution is the direct intent of the Founding Fathers, whereas the Bill of Rights are augmentations made to address concerns by several other members. Also, these civil rights are not actual civil rights so much as limitations on the Federal Government's ability to suspend them. That does NOT mean I support any suspension of civil rights, but it is very important to actually be aware of the distinction.

Is it a part of the constitution or not? Simple question, simple answer. Making distinctions of detail does not help your point.

[Tommycat]

Incorrect. You quoted an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, specifically a part of the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is an importance in the distinction. The base Constitution is the direct intent of the Founding Fathers, whereas the Bill of Rights are augmentations made to address concerns by several other members. Also, these civil rights are not actual civil rights so much as limitations on the Federal Government's ability to suspend them. That does NOT mean I support any suspension of civil rights, but it is very important to actually be aware of the distinction.

Amendments to the constitution become a part of the constitution. An amendment is something added to. The first 10 amendments were agreed to be added to secure ratification of the Constitution. To trivialize them as not part of the Constitution(though as an amendment it IS by its very nature part of the Constitution) shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Without them, the Constitution would have needed to be rewritten.

[Totenkopf]

@Toten: I was not implying anything. I did, however, mean "some," not "all." ....

 

I keep forgetting not to take you literally.

[mimartin]

National security?[/Quote] Nope, there is no way to prove allowing the Mosque to be built will impact National Security anymore than illegally violating our own rule of law and not allowing it to be built.

Avoiding civil unrest? [/Quote] Nope, again as your buddy likes to point out when a liberal states something like this, this is merely speculation on your part. There is no proof that this will happen and if history is any indication of future events (which it isn’t) then it is highly unlikely the building of the Mosque will lead to civil unrest.

Respecting the dead?[/Quote]I’d give you this one, but as JediAthos pointed out earlier, our military swears an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States. So by saying we should violate the Constitution, just this once, you are advocating dishonoring all those that have served in the United States military (both living and dead) in an effort to honor those that died on 09/11/2001.

[Jae Onasi]

The mosque--Legal? Of course. Tacky and rather 'in-your-face'?--if you listen to some people, yes, if you listen to a few others, they're trying to make amends. I go with the former rather than the latter on this one given the personalities of those who are actually involved in the mosque. However, being tacky or arrogant isn't illegal.

 

Should Obama have stayed out of it? Probably, but I think he's trying to prevent anti-Muslim violence from increasing from its smoldering state to outright firestorm, and he knows he has a lot of influence with New Yorkers. I think he honestly fears violence in NYC on this and that may be why he decided to speak out on it.

 

I know 2 blocks isn't huge in terms of distance from WTC, but where the heck are they going to put the mosque where it won't be viewable from the new WTC? You'd have to get rid of mosques for miles in that case.

 

If we want to have Constitutional freedoms, then we're stuck dealing with some aspects that we aren't going to like about it sometimes in the name of defending that freedom. We don't get to pick and choose when we ignore the Constitution just because we don't "like" some of the logical outcomes, like a mosque being built within a certain distance of a major attack site.

 

@LOH--Amendments to the Constitution make them a part of the Constitution. They are for all legal purposes the exact same thing, and the original sections of the Constitution make provisions for these Amendments. Saying that the Amendments do not carry the same weight as the Constitution is entirely in error.

[Samnmax221]

I laughed when the Mosque protesters harassed two Middle Eastern looking gentlemen who happened to be in the neighborhood, it turns out they were Coptic Christians on their way to protest the Mosque. This hateful bull**** is getting old fast.

[mimartin]

Let's see what happens on 09/11/2010, families of 09/11/2001 victims have asked both the protestors and the counter-protestors, of the planned Mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, to honor the dead and not hold their rallies on the anniversary.

 

Story

[Totenkopf]

Let's see what happens on 09/11/2010, families of 09/11/2001 victims have asked both the protestors and the counter-protestors, of the planned Mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, to honor the dead and not hold their rallies on the anniversary.

 

Story

 

Do the words "not bloody likely" ring a bell? Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.

[Liverandbacon]

Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.

 

A harder time for US and allied troops. The pastor who started that bs is going to be responsible for more than a few deaths.

 

Edit: Also, both sides are far too stubborn to give the protesting a break on 9/11, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong.

[mimartin]

Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.

Terry Jones makes me proud to be a Christian. Those warm Christian feeling shared around a roaring fire while singing Kumbaya is just what Christianity is all about. Stuff like this make me lean more and more towards Achilles way of thinking.

[purifier]

Might be more interesting, though, to see what the fallout from the Intl Burn a Quran Day ends up being.

 

 

 

 

Well that might bring the whole thing to a final boiling point, along with the protesting. And even if there wasn't protesting involved elsewhere, I'd imagine that would bring some tempers to really flare.

[Tommycat]

Terry Jones makes me proud to be a Christian. Those warm Christian feeling shared around a roaring fire while singing Kumbaya is just what Christianity is all about. Stuff like this make me lean more and more towards Achilles way of thinking.

 

Fortunately for Christians this is the extreme end of it(just as terrorists are the extreme for Muslims). And all of a religion shouldn't be judged by the extremists within(gosh... where have I heard that before).

[Totenkopf]

A harder time for US and allied troops. The pastor who started that bs is going to be responsible for more than a few deaths.

 

Edit: Also, both sides are far too stubborn to give the protesting a break on 9/11, unfortunately. I hope I'm wrong.

 

Yeah, I heard that he added a disclaimer to his expanded reasons for the burning (15 now, apparently) that stipulated he/his protest was in no way responsible for any violent reactions worldwide to his form of protest.

 

@mim---yeah, a good thing that most christians, like most muslims, don't necessarily tend to support the acts from their extremes. Like you, I view this protest as unduly provocative. However, the cynical part of me is waiting for the annoited one to rush to the defense of Jone's Constitutional right of free expression.

 

@purifier---true enough.

 

@TC--oh, the irony.

[mimartin]

Fortunately for Christians this is the extreme end of it(just as terrorists are the extreme for Muslims). And all of a religion shouldn't be judged by the extremists within(gosh... where have I heard that before).

 

@mim---yeah, a good thing that most christians, like most muslims, don't necessarily tend to support the acts from their extremes. Like you, I view this protest as unduly provocative.

Thanks you two. I did not know that. I thought that all Christians had to do it. I’m really glad I could not get the BIC to work before reading this.

[Totenkopf]

Thanks you two. I did not know that. I thought that all Christians had to do it. I’m really glad I could not get the BIC to work before reading this.

 

I'd lend you mine, but I need it for the next witch/heretic burning.

[JediMaster12]

Two things. First, in a city the size of NY, 2 blocks easily rates as "close". To say that it is "nowhere near" begs a definition of how elasticly terms are being used..

Merely clarifying that the proposed site is not technically on the WTC site and I keep hearing people say that it is. Of course as you say it depends on the elasticity of such terms. In my opinion though, it is not on the site of the WTC site and even a street map will show you otherwise.

 

The mosque--Legal? Of course. Tacky and rather 'in-your-face'?--if you listen to some people, yes, if you listen to a few others, they're trying to make amends. I go with the former rather than the latter on this one given the personalities of those who are actually involved in the mosque. However, being tacky or arrogant isn't illegal.[/Quote]

You know my father was talking about this. Well actually I brought it up since it seems he has his head in the sand as far as watching the news goes. Doesn't help when you know his TV program schedule is a marathon of Law and Order. Anyway he said something along the lines that it was tacky and of course I countered that but something sparked out at me. He said that it was not the right time and then took the opportunity to go into the "You're Catholic and American speech." The thing that went through my head was his saying that it wasn't the right time. The tragedies that occurred in 2001 on Sept 11 will be nine years ago this September. The question that came to mind was How much time is enough time?

 

My answer though in my usually on the fence position is that it is subjective. Heck we still have people who are still sore about Pearl Harbor and Vietnam and Korea and those have had much longer time periods. This actually brings me to a Metrolink incident that occurred where the Metrolink derailed and people died. After that day the number or people taking the Metrolink dropped. Thing was I took the Metrolink to LA, the same line that derailed about a week after the incident. My philosophy is that yes there is a time to be said and morn, etc but then you have to get right back on that horse. I don't mean to sound mean or callous but people who have lost people at the WTC have the right to be sad but if they let hang inside, all it does is bring them closer to despair. I don't mean to sound cliche on this but I think it was best said in a movie that it is not about how hard you are hit but how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.

 

The proposed mosque, maybe people see it as a thumb in the eye but frankly in the end this mosque that is proposed to be built is a symbol of what our nation stands for, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Tommycat]

Thanks you two. I did not know that. I thought that all Christians had to do it. I’m really glad I could not get the BIC to work before reading this.

 

I use a Zippo. Works better in windy environments. Like those around the windbags some church leaders happen to be.

[Samnmax221]

Fortunately for Christians this is the extreme end of it(just as terrorists are the extreme for Muslims). And all of a religion shouldn't be judged by the extremists within(gosh... where have I heard that before).

No, the more extreme end is ****ers like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, and James Kopp. Wow, Christians can be terrorists too, who'd have thunk it?

[Liverandbacon]

Yeah, I heard that he added a disclaimer to his expanded reasons for the burning (15 now, apparently) that stipulated he/his protest was in no way responsible for any violent reactions worldwide to his form of protest.

 

I'm so very glad that he's able to rationalize away all his guilt. I wouldn't want him to have trouble sleeping while our soldiers are getting killed.

 

Perhaps any discussion of the Burn a Quran protest should be in its own thread, instead of us dragging this off-topic. I'd create one, but I don't really have anything else to say on the matter at the moment.

[Tommycat]

No, the more extreme end is ****ers like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, and James Kopp. Wow, Christians can be terrorists too, who'd have thunk it?

I've never said otherwise. Quite frankly those pro-lifers blowing up abortion clinics are the easiest example of Christian terrorists. Granted I DID make it sound like there was a differ by degree disparity. BUT I was simply stating that views like those on the extremes should not be used to judge the whole of the religion. I personally don't go to church anymore because of many of the "Christian" leaders. Gosh you'd think that the people who's job it is to teach people about Jesus Christ would have actually read his teachings.... "Turn the other cheek" ring any friggin bells? Forgiveness is at the forefront of Jesus's teachings. Yet many of these buggers preach intolerance. Yeah... Way to follow in His footsteps.

[mimartin]

Perhaps any discussion of the Burn a Quran protest should be in its own thread, instead of us dragging this off-topic.

I'm not so sure, seems to me that they are different sides of the same issue. There is no legal reason to stop the Mosque from being built, but some people see it as an insult to those that died on 09/11/2001. On the other side, Terry Jones is a hate preacher and a complete idiot. He is attempting to purposely enrage an entire group of people for no other reason than his 15 minutes of fame. However, there is no legal reason for the Federal Government to stop him. Both are local matters and both are protected by the Constitution.

 

On a moderators note, since I have excessively participated in this discussion, I will let the decision of if the idiot factor known as burn a book day should be moved be handled by another moderator.

[Astor]

Seems that Monty Python Star Pastor Terry Jones has made sure the two are related.

 

He has apparently cancelled his Koran burning, claiming he has done so because he has made an agreement with those behind the Park 51 faith centre, whereby they will move the location of the faith centre.

 

Apparently.

 

If true, this will no doubt be seen as a victory by gun-toting, supposedly Christian extremists.

[Totenkopf]

Rev Jones backs down on apparent promise of site relocation:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

 

Backers of NYC Islamic center appear divided:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_us/us_nyc_mosque

 

Trump to possibly buy lots:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_bi_ge/us_nyc_mosque_trump