A Stupid Idea?

[Habib]

You cannot both advocate religious liberty as enshrined in the First Amendment and demand that this building should not be allowed. It is simply impossible to reconcile those two ideas. Any attempt to do so is an exercise in bigotry. Those who argue against this believe these things: All Muslims wish for the destruction of the United States, all Muslims support terrorism, and that Muslims must either convert from their religion or not be granted full citizenship in this country.

 

It is actually frightening that lines in the sand are being drawn over this issue. I don’t know that there has been such open hatred legitimized in this way in my lifetime. We have one of the main political parties and a slew of presidential candidates essentially advocating the stripping of rights of citizens based on religious belief.

 

Those against the mosque must argue that the fundamentalists plotting terrorism in Afghanistan are the exact same as those whose website features pictures of women in traditional Western dress holding positions of leadership, despite that the fundamentalists consider these Western Muslims blasphemers in urgent need of being purged. Following this logic, there is no distinction between the construction of mosques in NYC or the construction of mosques in rural Tennessee. The proximity to the WTC campus is both arbitrary and an attempt to validate bigotry. Furthermore, the idea of it being a “shrine” to the destruction of the twin towers is equally as absurd. There is absolutely no evidence that is the case. In fact, all available evidence speaks to the contrary. One must weave a web of distortion to create the impression that the faith rigidly adheres to the idea of “victory monuments.” It’s unsubstantial. And I’m sure those same people would launch a spirited defense of Christianity if its past sins were used to support the barring of the religion.

[Fastbreak]

You cannot both advocate religious liberty as enshrined in the First Amendment and demand that this building should not be allowed. It is simply impossible to reconcile those two ideas. Any attempt to do so is an exercise in bigotry.

I'd like to believe you're too smart to fall for this.

 

So you're saying that a specific sect of a religion that asserts intolerance for all other religions but their own, the subjugation of women, death for homosexuals, honor killings, stoning of women accused of adultery, etc... essentially everything the First Amendment is not... has a First Amendment right to disobey the First Amendment? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

This is absurd to the Nth degree, and you know it.

 

In June 2010, police in Dearborn, Mich. arrested Christians for proselytizing at an Arab festival. They were doing so legally, peacefully and completely within the law. BUT, this is forbidden by sharia law. The popos claim they were trying to prevent an incident, but the very clear 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom was sacrificed in deference to sharia’s intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam. Any country that tolerates the shameful offenses of Fred Phelp's bunch should be outraged by this action.

 

How do you reconcile the U.S. Government forbidding polygamy when that was and is a certral tenet of certain Mormon sects? Why should they not be permitted to flaunt their religious freedoms too?

 

Those who argue against this believe these things: All Muslims wish for the destruction of the United States, all Muslims support terrorism, and that Muslims must either convert from their religion or not be granted full citizenship in this country.

I don't believe one of those statements as presented and I am against the mosque at ground zero.

 

Try again. :thumb:

[True blue (and gold)]

Who said anything about inventing new laws?

 

...except perhaps for the Imam of the Ground Zero mosque... he's all about imposing Sharia law here in the U.S.

 

I'm sure you'd do really well under his form of religious/social integration. :thumb:

 

Sharia is used to justify stoning, the execution of homosexuals, the subjugation of women, and does not permit freedom of conscience or permit Muslims to renounce their faith or convert to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty and is entirely at odds with core American values. It is a threat to all who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.

 

We have no "religious" obligation to permit a radical proponent of such barbarity to build a cardboard tent in lower Manhattan, much less a $100 million shrine.

 

I will not be browbeaten and guilted into accepting the imposition of sharia in any American communities. You may believe what you want, but sharia is the antithesis of and enemy to true religious freedom.

 

You can fear-monger all you want, but I won't bite. You can, again, in yet another thread, turn the discussion from what it is into what you want it to be. Again, try for another fish.

[True blue (and gold)]

You cannot both advocate religious liberty as enshrined in the First Amendment and demand that this building should not be allowed. It is simply impossible to reconcile those two ideas. Any attempt to do so is an exercise in bigotry. Those who argue against this believe these things: All Muslims wish for the destruction of the United States, all Muslims support terrorism, and that Muslims must either convert from their religion or not be granted full citizenship in this country.

 

It is actually frightening that lines in the sand are being drawn over this issue. I don’t know that there has been such open hatred legitimized in this way in my lifetime. We have one of the main political parties and a slew of presidential candidates essentially advocating the stripping of rights of citizens based on religious belief.

 

Those against the mosque must argue that the fundamentalists plotting terrorism in Afghanistan are the exact same as those whose website features pictures of women in traditional Western dress holding positions of leadership, despite that the fundamentalists consider these Western Muslims blasphemers in urgent need of being purged. Following this logic, there is no distinction between the construction of mosques in NYC or the construction of mosques in rural Tennessee. The proximity to the WTC campus is both arbitrary and an attempt to validate bigotry. Furthermore, the idea of it being a “shrine” to the destruction of the twin towers is equally as absurd. There is absolutely no evidence that is the case. In fact, all available evidence speaks to the contrary. One must weave a web of distortion to create the impression that the faith rigidly adheres to the idea of “victory monuments.” It’s unsubstantial. And I’m sure those same people would launch a spirited defense of Christianity if its past sins were used to support the barring of the religion.

 

:thumb: (And I mean it. )

[Fastbreak]

You can fear-monger all you want, but I won't bite. You can, again, in yet another thread, turn the discussion from what it is into what you want it to be. Again, try for another fish.

You apparently have me confused with someone with no idea what the hell they're talking about... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If stating easily verifiable facts is fear mongering, I'll shoulder that accusation. :thumb:

 

As far as your assertion that I’m turning the thread… I’m totally puzzled. I read the very first post by RTS stating that permitting the construction of the proposed mosque at ground zero is a stupid idea. I have simply provided supporting information as to why I agree it is a poor idea. If you think that’s turning the thread, you will need to inform me how and why?

[Habib]

I'd like to believe you're too smart to fall for this.

 

So you're saying that a specific sect of a religion that asserts intolerance for all other religions but their own, the subjugation of women, death for homosexuals, honor killings, stoning of women accused of adultery, etc... essentially everything the First Amendment is not... has a First Amendment right to disobey the First Amendment? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

This is absurd to the Nth degree, and you know it.

 

In June 2010, police in Dearborn, Mich. arrested Christians for proselytizing at an Arab festival. They were doing so legally, peacefully and completely within the law. BUT, this is forbidden by sharia law. The popos claim they were trying to prevent an incident, but the very clear 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom was sacrificed in deference to sharia’s intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam. Any country that tolerates the shameful offenses of Fred Phelp's bunch should be outraged by this action.

 

How do you reconcile the U.S. Government forbidding polygamy when that was and is a certral tenet of certain Mormon sects? Why should they not be permitted to flaunt their religious freedoms too?

 

Sharia law has absolutely nothing to do with the prohibition of the construction of a mosque in NYC. Your argument is that a mosque should not be built because some American Muslims advocate the incorporation of sharia law, particularly the fundamentalist version you've chosen to generalize all Muslims with. I'm not sure where to begin with the fallaciousness of that. It's nonsensical.

 

I don't believe one of those statements as presented and I am against the mosque at ground zero.

 

Your argument in this thread has been that this mosque, which, like any other house of worship is legally allowed to be built under the protection of freedom of religion, should be prohibited because other Muslims have done bad things, i.e. all Muslims are the same and responsible for any actions taken under the guise of their religion. If you disagree with those statements (and with yourself) you wouldn't care if a mosque was being built.

[True blue (and gold)]

You apparently have me confused with someone with no idea what the hell they're talking about... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

If stating easily verifiable facts is fear mongering, I'll shoulder that accusation. :thumb:

 

As far as your assertion that I’m turning the thread… I’m totally puzzled. I read the very first post by RTS stating that permitting the construction of the proposed mosque at ground zero is a stupid idea. I have simply provided supporting information as to why I agree it is a poor idea. If you think that’s turning the thread, you will need to inform me how and why?

 

The discussion of sharia law. Fear mongering. Implying that the imam involved in the building of the community center near ground zero wants to promote Sharia law here in the US...and all of those things that, you say, go with it. Fear mongering. Calling him a radical. Not fact - fear mongering.

 

The beauty of our country is that we CAN choose the religion we prefer...an orthodox brand of it or a more moderate brand of it. Or even no religion at all. With the vast majority of those who subscribe to a religion being Christians, we can find a wide array of denominations, from those in which women may not hold leadership roles or wear pants or short hair, to those in which pants wearing, short haired women lead the service. The beauty of our country is that if TODAY I want to belong to one church and TOMORROW I want to belong to another, I can. If one day I am a Muslim and the very next day, I want to be a Christian, I can. That is my first amendment right.

[Bluegrasscard]

Those who argue against this believe these things: All Muslims wish for the destruction of the United States, all Muslims support terrorism, and that Muslims must either convert from their religion or not be granted full citizenship in this country.

 

 

So much for understanding.

[Fastbreak]

Sharia law has absolutely nothing to do with the prohibition of the construction of a mosque in NYC. Your argument is that a mosque should not be built because some American Muslims advocate the incorporation of sharia law. I'm not sure where to begin with the fallaciousness of that. It's nonsensical.

What is nonsensical my friend, is for a bright young person like you to ignore the fact that this specific Imam – not just any random Muslim, but Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – is a strong proponent of bringing U.S. laws in line with Sharia Law… a set of religious laws specifically discriminatory to women, other faiths, alternative lifestyles and out of line with much of our Constitution. Sharia is in many ways the antithesis of our freedoms.

 

There are over 100 mosques in New York City alone… I have no problem with them. I am not a narrow bigot blindly against all Muslims. I do have a problem with this particular Imam’s intent and timing.

 

Again, I ask you, if we are correct in denying certain Mormon sects the right to engage in polygamy, why then are we out of line to reject religious teachings even more out of line with our culture and Constitution at Ground Zero?

 

Your argument in this thread has been that this mosque, which, like any other house of worship is legally allowed to be built under the protection of freedom of religion, should be prohibited because other Muslims have done bad things, i.e. all Muslims are the same and responsible for any actions taken under the guise of their religion. If you disagree with those statements (and with yourself) you wouldn't care if a mosque was being built.

I disagree. See above. :thumb:

[True blue (and gold)]

Given the direction that this thread has turned, I thought that this article was appropriate. The author quotes the wife of the imam discussed in this thread. It discusses female leadership in Islam. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1039716,00.html.

[Fastbreak]

The discussion of sharia law. Fear mongering. Implying that the imam involved in the building of the community center near ground zero wants to promote Sharia law here in the US...and all of those things that, you say, go with it. Fear mongering. Calling him a radical. Not fact - fear mongering.

Semantics Ma’am… purely semantics. I do consider proponents of Sharia to be radicals, but in proper context within their own faith, they may not be so radical. Even so, are you suggesting that you would be in favor of Sharia here?

 

I will find you some direct quotes from the dear sweet Imam that reveal his strong feelings about the need for imposing Sharia Law in the U.S… a set of intolerant religious rules that very effectively negate most of everything you state in the following:

 

he beauty of our country is that we CAN choose the religion we prefer...an orthodox brand of it or a more moderate brand of it. Or even no religion at all. With the vast majority of those who subscribe to a religion being Christians, we can find a wide array of denominations, from those in which women may not hold leadership roles or wear pants or short hair, to those in which pants wearing, short haired women lead the service. The beauty of our country is that if TODAY I want to belong to one church and TOMORROW I want to belong to another, I can. If one day I am a Muslim and the very next day, I want to be a Christian, I can. That is my first amendment right.

Pretty thoughts I generally agree with… but this would most definitely not happen under Sharia… :thumb:

[Zoot Soup]

What is nonsensical my friend, is for a bright young person like you to ignore the fact that this specific Imam – not just any random Muslim, but Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – is a strong proponent of bringing U.S. laws in line with Sharia Law… a set of religious laws specifically discriminatory to women, other faiths, alternative lifestyles and out of line with much of our Constitution. Sharia is in many ways the antithesis of our freedoms.

 

There are over 100 mosques in New York City alone… I have no problem with them. I am not a narrow bigot blindly against all Muslims. I do have a problem with this particular Imam’s intent and timing.

 

Again, I ask you, if we are correct in denying certain Mormon sects the right to engage in polygamy, why then are we out of line to reject religious teachings even more out of line with our culture and Constitution at Ground Zero?

 

I didn't want to weigh back in on this topic, but you've brought a whole new round of misinformation to it and I must speak. You say the imam wants to bring Sharia law to the United States. Wrong. Read this article, written by the imam himself, and then tell me you aren't just fear-mongering- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/what-shariah-law-is-all-a_b_190825.html

 

As for your question, about Mormons, polygamy is against our national laws. There is nothing against people wanting to build a mosque in our laws.

[Habib]

What is nonsensical my friend, is for a bright young person like you to ignore the fact that this specific Imam – not just any random Muslim, but Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf – is a strong proponent of bringing U.S. laws in line with Sharia Law… a set of religious laws specifically discriminatory to women, other faiths, alternative lifestyles and out of line with much of our Constitution. Sharia is in many ways the antithesis of our freedoms.

 

Sharia law is a debate for another thread. The development of this mosque, in and of itself, is no different than the development of any other house of worship, no matter the beliefs. There are Christian churches that advocate similar objectives, yet nary is a word spoken about their right to be built. So long as they are not acting on their calls for the execution of homosexuals, we vehemently disagree with their opinions but allow them to hold them. The location of this mosque, the complaints about the disclosure of the donations, the complaints about the imam, and the specious attempt to describe this as some sort of trophy are all gloss attempting to hide the political benefits of rousing anti-Muslim sentiment. There is no other explanation.

 

There are over 100 mosques in New York City alone… I have no problem with them. I am not a narrow bigot blindly against all Muslims. I do have a problem with this particular Imam’s intent and timing.

 

Your posts often seem to contradict this.

 

Again, I ask you, if we are correct in denying certain Mormon sects the right to engage in polygamy, why then are we out of line to reject religious teachings even more out of line with our culture and Constitution at Ground Zero?

 

While I don’t necessarily have a problem with polygamy in principle and will not justify its banning, as I said before, there is a difference between beliefs and actions. So long as a person’s exercising of their liberty does not encroach on the ability of me to exercise mine then they should have the right to it. I may argue, disagree, or denounce the religious opinions of others, but constructing a place for them to congregate bothers me none. I don’t care that Fred Phelps has a church and I don’t care where advocates of sharia place their mosque, but I will disagree with both of them.

 

I disagree. See above. :thumb:

 

Right. Religious liberty does not extend to Muslims whose opinions differ from yours.

[True blue (and gold)]

Semantics Ma’am… purely semantics. I do consider proponents of Sharia to be radicals, but in proper context within their own faith, they may not be so radical. Even so, are you suggesting that you would be in favor of Sharia here?

 

I will find you some direct quotes from the dear sweet Imam that reveal his strong feelings about the need for imposing Sharia Law in the U.S… a set of intolerant religious rules that very effectively negate most of everything you state in the following:

 

Pretty thoughts I generally agree with… but this would most definitely not happen under Sharia… :thumb:

 

Again, with the Sharia law discussion. Nice slight of hand trick. :lol:

 

You don't have to look for any articles for me. I've completed quite a bit of reading on my own tonight and ordered some additional reading. You can fish elsewhere, Brother Fastbreak.

 

The bottom line is that the mosque can, and should (if the owner of the land chooses), be built, according to our own laws. I don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, but it is lawful.

[Plato]

It very well may be lawful, but I will say this - if it is built, it will show me that it's not just the radical terrorist Muslims who have it wrong. For the Muslim decision makers to show this level of insensitivity toward those who lost loved ones in 9/11 - even if it's lawful, it's a poor decision at best and an arrogant slap in the face at worst.

Lawful, yes. It's also lawful for me to voice my disapproval.