That is the problem with generalities. A Muslim group killed 3000 + innocent civilians that day. I don't think the KKK has killed 3000 folks in their existence, although I am not positive. Both the group that flew the planes into the World Trade Center, and Pentagon, and fields in Pennsylvania, and the horrid KKK are hate mongers. They both are guilty of religous and social intolerance.

I see them as very similar.

 

The KKK question is an interesting one worth exploring.

 

As to Christians, I'll speak to Catholics, of which I am one. We are guiltion of heinous crimes against humanity. The Inquisition, The Crusades....

As for crimes committed against Christians against Christians, the Salem Witch Trials, abortion clinic bombings....

And I don't understand what the number of people killed in the name of religion has to do with anything.

Whether it's one or 3000, if it's done in the name of God it's completely and undeniably NOT acceptable.

Aside from the fact that the vast majority of practicing Muslims are peaceful citizens of whatever country they call home, you're correct.

Which brings us back to what is emerging as my main theme. We are not talking about "the vast majority of practicing Muslims are peaceful citizens of whatever country they call home" we're talking about this specific Imam and his specifically proposed mosque.

 

Have you watched the video I posted?

 

Maybe then you will begin to understand my concerns. I don't expect you to agree necessarily, but it would be a nice start for you to understand I am not merely spouting off uninformed opinion shaped in fear and ignorance. :thumb:

Which brings us back to what is emerging as my main theme. We are not talking about "the vast majority of practicing Muslims are peaceful citizens of whatever country they call home" we're talking about this specific Imam and his specifically proposed mosque.

 

Have you watched the video I posted?

 

Maybe then you will begin to understand my concerns. I don't expect you to agree necessarily, but it would be a nice start for you to understand I am not merely spouting off uninformed opinion shaped in fear and ignorance. :thumb:

 

I have not had a chance to watch your video as they don't really approve of that kind of thing at work.

 

And Fb, I've been around the P&R forum long enough to know that the last thing I would ever accuse you of is being uninformed or ignorant on any of the issues you discuss. I normally find myself agreeing with you on the majority of issues, and have learned quite a bit about different topics from reading your posts. This however is one it appears we disagree on, and that's quite alright.

I have not had a chance to watch your video as they don't really approve of that kind of thing at work.

 

And Fb, I've been around the P&R forum long enough to know that the last thing I would ever accuse you of is being uninformed or ignorant on any of the issues you discuss. I normally find myself agreeing with you on the majority of issues, and have learned quite a bit about different topics from reading your posts. This however is one it appears we disagree on, and that's quite alright.

 

And one you actually find yourself agreeing with me on. :lol: Which may be giving you pause.

The KKK question is an interesting one worth exploring.

 

As to Christians, I'll speak to Catholics, of which I am one. We are guiltion of heinous crimes against humanity. The Inquisition, The Crusades....

As for crimes committed against Christians against Christians, the Salem Witch Trials, abortion clinic bombings....

And I don't understand what the number of people killed in the name of religion has to do with anything.

Whether it's one or 3000, if it's done in the name of God it's completely and undeniably NOT acceptable.

So... does that mean you would be in support of an initiative to construct a 13 story Crusader House dedicated to Pope Urban II in Ma'arrat al-Numan for the purpose of building bridges between peoples of all faiths?

Americans across New York and the nation have a First Amendment right to voice their opposition to the ground zero mosque. These voices are that treasured “marketplace of ideas” protected by the First Amendment. The attempt to silence them through cries of racism, bigotry and religious intolerance in the name of that same First Amendment is ironic to say the very least.

 

This is silly. I’m disagreeing with your opinion, not “silencing” it. You would have a point if I lobbied for the government to restrict the content of your opinions.

 

This whole thread was opened under the question of whether this mosque is "A Stupid Idea?"

 

I have stated that "Yes" I do think it is a stupid idea, and I was stupid enough to state why I believe this specific mosque at this specific location by this specific imam is a stupid idea.

 

For this I have been tarred with broad sweeping hyperbole fueled generalizations concluding in essence that since I think this singular mosque is a bad idea, I am automatically:

• … against ALL mosques everywhere in this country…
  
• …a narrow minded bigot, racist that’s intolerant of any religion other than the one I choose to follow…
  
• …a hypocrite that wants the full force of the First Amendment protecting my rights but unwilling to extend them to others with whom I may disagree.
  

I have then been feathered with impassioned lectures on the merits of the First Amendment.

 

This is absurd!

 

I have said nothing whatsoever indicating I am against people who choose to peacefully practice Islam… on American soil. I do however; have tremendous issues with those who take it to its fullest extremes. In reading extensively to actually understand the dynamics of what's going on here, I am not connvinced that this Imam is being honest.

 

This is NOT a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment covers the freedom to worship as we choose, to assemble peacefully and to speak freely and openly. It does NOT grant anyone the right to build whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. That is a matter of zoning and public acceptance best left to residents of the communities in which they live.

 

SO TO BE CLEAR… I have not stated anywhere that government should do anything. ( Believe it or not, government is the solution for all of us. )

AND… I think building the proposed mosque, at this specific location by this specific Imam is a stupid idea. :thumb:

 

You have argued that Muslims do not have the right to construct a building within an arbitrary proximity of Ground Zero - not merely that they "should not" - thus your analogies to restrictions placed on construction near airport runways, prohibited areas on historic preservations, and your attempt to evade the First Amendment by saying Muslims are free to worship everywhere but near Ground Zero. That is not simply saying it is a bad idea, you are demanding action. Specifically, you are demanding that one religion be proscribed from taking the same actions any other religion would be allowed to take. You are not seeking a protective zone barring all construction, but a protective zone barring one religion exclusively. That is, fundamentally, a First Amendment issue. Furthermore, by arguing that anything Islamic near Ground Zero is offensive, you are equating the entire religion, no matter the actual beliefs, with the terrorists and you have said that if it weren’t for that pesky “protective shield of religion” thing Islam should be banned from being practiced. Some might view that as a bit intolerant.

 

So, to summarize: yes, you argued that this mosque be prohibited due to the religious beliefs of its members; yes, that involves the government; yes, it is then a First Amendment issue; yes, sweeping all Muslims into a category of people that do not deserve, but are reluctantly given, freedom of worship is intolerant. To proclaim that these are falsehoods maliciously assigned to you after the entire body of posts you’ve made in this thread is audaciously dishonest.

I have not had a chance to watch your video as they don't really approve of that kind of thing at work.

 

And Fb, I've been around the P&R forum long enough to know that the last thing I would ever accuse you of is being uninformed or ignorant on any of the issues you discuss. I normally find myself agreeing with you on the majority of issues, and have learned quite a bit about different topics from reading your posts. This however is one it appears we disagree on, and that's quite alright.

I agree... I too find myself agreeing with you most of the time. I cannot go into great detail, but this topic is more than a passing interest for me. There is much more to this story than is being reported in our press. Walid Shoebat is a highly credible source of intelligence on this subject. I encourage you to watch the video when you get the chance. I don't think it will be a waste of your time. :thumb:

You would have a point if I lobbied for the government to restrict the content of your opinions.

And you expect me to believe you wouldn’t if you actually thought the government might actually shut me up? :lol:

 

You have argued that Muslims do not have the right to construct a building within an arbitrary proximity of Ground Zero - not merely that they "should not" - thus your analogies to restrictions placed on construction near airport runways, prohibited areas on historic preservations, and your attempt to evade the First Amendment by saying Muslims are free to worship everywhere but near Ground Zero.

I’ve never said Muslims can’t worship near GZ. They can go pray in the pit of WTC Tower One for all I care. I simply disagree with this group building the proposed mosque.

 

The First Amendment does not grant ANYONE of ANY faith the RIGHT to construct their religious building ANYWHERE they want. The restrictions I cited validate this. There are thousands of examples coast-to-coast.

 

It may come as a disappointment to you, but NOWHERE have I stated that Muslims are entitled to fewer rights than anyone else of any other faith… including the one I try to practice. This is simply not a First Amendment issue IMO. I have no doubt some ACLU attorney will attempt to prove otherwise, but this has nothing to do with Muslims being free to practice their faith.

 

I have led FCA groups at a private Christian school and at a public school. There were no restrictions where and when we could meet and worship at the Church school… other than just being courteous, and not double scheduling the same space at the same time with other groups. There were many restrictions at the public school. How in your logic is it reasonable to state that anyone can build anything they want “in the name of religion” lest we violate some wispy First Amendment implication, and yet kids across the country are not truly free to worship as they please in OUR public schools. What about pulling down the Ten Commandments and other Christian symbols in or near public structures?

 

Give me a break. We whiz on Christians and the Bible daily in this country in the name of the First Amendment.

 

I think this specific mosque at this specific location is a bad idea. I am doing nothing to actively stop it. I simply disagree that there is any inherent RIGHT for them to build it there.

 

 

Some might view that as a bit intolerant.

You are welcome to view it however you please. Given time, I am 100% confident I will be proven correct on this matter. I view your position as naïve.

 

So, to summarize: yes, you argued that this mosque be prohibited due to the religious beliefs of its members; yes, that involves the government; yes, it is then a First Amendment issue; yes, sweeping all Muslims into a category of people that do not deserve, but are reluctantly given, freedom of worship is intolerant. To proclaim that these are falsehoods maliciously assigned to you after the entire body of posts you’ve made in this thread is audaciously dishonest.

Sharia is more than religious beliefs, it is a potent political worldview bent upon forcing its will upon all… a system of cultural governance completely contrary to the freedoms and liberties you so passionately argue to defend. From this standpoint, cloaking an antithetical political system within the cloak of “religion” to procure First Amendment rights is disingenuous to put it politely.

 

NOWHERE have I included ALL Muslims in the sweeping generality you once again assert. All Muslims wishing to live in peace within our culture and laws and Constitution are 100% fine by me. Those desiring to subvert our nation and culture by subjecting us to Sharia can pound sand.

 

You are grasping at straws attempting to corner me into a place with a label I will not wear. Nor am I a liar. I realize from your tone you probably don’t hear this a lot… but you are wrong.

And you expect me to believe you wouldn’t if you actually thought the government might actually shut me up? :lol:

 

I wouldn’t. I actually support the marketplace of ideas, which is why I am so adamant about defending what makes it possible.

 

I’ve never said Muslims can’t worship near GZ. They can go pray in the pit of WTC Tower One for all I care. I simply disagree with this group building the proposed mosque.

 

The First Amendment does not grant ANYONE of ANY faith the RIGHT to construct their religious building ANYWHERE they want. The restrictions I cited validate this. There are thousands of examples coast-to-coast.

 

It may come as a disappointment to you, but NOWHERE have I stated that Muslims are entitled to fewer rights than anyone else of any other faith… including the one I try to practice. This is simply not a First Amendment issue IMO. I have no doubt some ACLU attorney will attempt to prove otherwise, but this has nothing to do with Muslims being free to practice their faith.

 

When restrictions exist they serve a necessary and secular purpose and apply equally to all faiths, privileging none over another. This is what the First Amendment prevents laws from doing otherwise there would be a litany of laws restricting and constraining unpopular religions. The purpose of the religious clauses of the First Amendment is literally to prevent this. Why, if it didn’t we wouldn’t allow the Church of Scientology to build their center in downtown Cincinnati when there is plenty of open space in rural Butler County. What you desire is a restriction specific to Muslims only. That cannot be squared with your comment “nowhere have I stated that Muslims are entitled to fewer rights than anyone else of any other faith” or the First Amendment.

 

I think this specific mosque at this specific location is a bad idea. I am doing nothing to actively stop it. I simply disagree that there is any inherent RIGHT for them to build it there.

 

There is if the only obstacle is the name of their religion.

 

 

You are welcome to view it however you please. Given time, I am 100% confident I will be proven correct on this matter. I view your position as naïve.

 

Likewise.

 

Sharia is more than religious beliefs, it is a potent political worldview bent upon forcing its will upon all… a system of cultural governance completely contrary to the freedoms and liberties you so passionately argue to defend. From this standpoint, cloaking an antithetical political system within the cloak of “religion” to procure First Amendment rights is disingenuous to put it politely.

 

It isn’t. People may believe in whatever they want. I support their right to, even if I disagree. You would be right if I were advocating the implementation of sharia law while simultaneously advocating liberal principles of freedom. But I’m not. And there are plenty of groups, even religious groups, in the US already who advocate new and undemocratic political systems – they are protected too, though their dreams will never come to fruition thanks to our Constitution.

 

NOWHERE have I included ALL Muslims in the sweeping generality you once again assert. All Muslims wishing to live in peace within our culture and laws and Constitution are 100% fine by me. Those desiring to subvert our nation and culture by subjecting us to Sharia can pound sand.

 

You have, though you’ve masked it by contending that those Muslims who wish to live in peace under our Constitution are not true Muslims practicing “pure” Islam. Never mind that all Muslims will claim they are practicing the pure form of Islam, just as you and I will claim we are practicing the pure form of Christianity, though our beliefs and interpretations differ widely. At any rate, if you did not believe that the actions of the hijackers were inextricable from any Muslim then it would not be an affront for a mosque to be built there.

 

You are grasping at straws attempting to corner me into a place with a label I will not wear. Nor am I a liar. I realize from your tone you probably don’t hear this a lot… but you are wrong.

 

Please. I’ve been wrong plenty and have been told plenty. But I have sense enough to admit it or bow out when that is the case. But I believe you are speaking in contradictions and doublespeak.

Interesting thread.

 

For the record, I think it is indeed a bad idea in terms of bad public relations. I don't, however, see what Sharia Law has to do with anything. We'd be as likely to align U.S. law with Jewish OT law as we would Sharia, and suggesting it is somehow going to take hold in the U.S. seems very fanciful.

 

I'm not opposed to it being built, but I'd be curious to know what construction firm would take on the PR nightmare that would accompany being general contractor.

I believe you are speaking in contradictions and doublespeak.

I'll make it really simple and clear then...

 

• In answer to the opening post of this thread… simply put… I think building this specific mosque at this specific site is a stupid idea.
   
  
• I fully understand why some find this mosque an insensitive provocation… and a stupid idea.
   
  
• If the genuine intent by Imam Rauf is healing and bridge building… the Imam needs a new P.R. agent and new advisors. To be crystal clear, I think this is a stupid idea.
   
  
• Rather than being a bumbling simpleton with warm and fuzzy intentions and a botched plan, I think Imam Rauf is duplicitous with ulterior motives that may not become clear until too late. So, yet again, I think this is a stupid idea.
   
  
• For me to make these statements about this specific Imam, or in the broader sense Muslims intent upon forcefully or covertly pushing Sharia Law (ala the Taliban) is no different than me stating that I don’t think Fred Phelps’ bunch of so-called- Baptists have any business spreading their anti-gay message of hate at the funerals of fallen servicemen. Phelps may have a First Amendment right to make a colossal sphincter of himself, but I don’t have to endorse him doing it just because I believe in freedom for all. Have I mentioned that I think the GZ mosque is a really stupid idea.
   
  
• I have a First Amendment right to express my opinion too. NOWHERE have I made a sweeping statement indicting ALL Muslims. You can’t find one sentence or paragraph or chapter I’ve written that says anything close to that… or you would have quoted me by now. Oh, and I think the GZ mosque is a stupid idea.
   
  
• If there is anything in this post you genuinely believe is bigoted, racist, homophobic, intolerant, or a call for our government to leap into action and deny rights to anyone… so be it... I'm tired of trying to explain why the sky is blue... and that the GZ mosque is a stupid idea.
   
  
• Have you watched the video I posted yet? It’s not stupid. :thumb:
  

Fastback, what do you think of the GZ mosque idea?

 

Very interesting video.

“A Call to Prayer From the World Trade Center Rubble. Islamic Da’wah from the Heart of America, Post 911.”

I'll make it really simple and clear then...

 

• In answer to the opening post of this thread… simply put… I think building this specific mosque at this specific site is a stupid idea.
   
  
• I fully understand why some find this mosque an insensitive provocation… and a stupid idea.
   
  
• If the genuine intent by Imam Rauf is healing and bridge building… the Imam needs a new P.R. agent and new advisors. To be crystal clear, I think this is a stupid idea.
   
  
• Rather than being a bumbling simpleton with warm and fuzzy intentions and a botched plan, I think Imam Rauf is duplicitous with ulterior motives that may not become clear until too late. So, yet again, I think this is a stupid idea.
   
  
• For me to make these statements about this specific Imam, or in the broader sense Muslims intent upon forcefully or covertly pushing Sharia Law (ala the Taliban) is no different than me stating that I don’t think Fred Phelps’ bunch of so-called- Baptists have any business spreading their anti-gay message of hate at the funerals of fallen servicemen. Phelps may have a First Amendment right to make a colossal sphincter of himself, but I don’t have to endorse him doing it just because I believe in freedom for all. Have I mentioned that I think the GZ mosque is a really stupid idea.
   
  
• I have a First Amendment right to express my opinion too. NOWHERE have I made a sweeping statement indicting ALL Muslims. You can’t find one sentence or paragraph or chapter I’ve written that says anything close to that… or you would have quoted me by now. Oh, and I think the GZ mosque is a stupid idea.
   
  
• If there is anything in this post you genuinely believe is bigoted, racist, homophobic, intolerant, or a call for our government to leap into action and deny rights to anyone… so be it... I'm tired of trying to explain why the sky is blue... and that the GZ mosque is a stupid idea.
   
  
• Have you watched the video I posted yet? It’s not stupid. :thumb:
  

 

Your argument not too long ago was that this mosque should be prohibited. Now you merely wish to say it's a stupid idea. While I disagree, I don't care enough at this point to split hairs with you over that. Suffice to say that I don't believe Islam to be inherently evil, nor do I believe it's presence near Ground Zero is a signal of victory. If a Christian church wanted to be placed there no one would have batted an eye and in an ideal America the same would occur with the placement of a mosque. Unfortunately we are far from that and I find it troubling how enraged people have become over it.

Your argument not too long ago was that this mosque should be prohibited. Now you merely wish to say it's a stupid idea. While I disagree, I don't care enough at this point to split hairs with you over that. Suffice to say that I don't believe Islam to be inherently evil, nor do I believe it's presence near Ground Zero is a signal of victory. If a Christian church wanted to be placed there no one would have batted an eye and in an ideal America the same would occur with the placement of a mosque. Unfortunately we are far from that and I find it troubling how enraged people have become over it.

 

I'd hope not, considering your screen name is an Arabic word.