Mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero

[BanginJimmy]

That is one of the smartest comments I have read regarding this situation. FYI, there are actually two mosques near Ground Zero. It's ironic that no one complains of the other mosques around Ground Zero and they both are only a few blocks away. Now that a new mosque is being built, it has become a problem. Why? We are supposed to pride ourselves on religious tolerance and yet, we cannot even do that. If someone advocated building a Catholic Church within two blocks of Oklahoma City Building bombing, would it receive this same level of disapproval?

Those 2 mosques were there before the attacks and the fact that no one has said anything negative about them proves your own, and Blender's, point wrong. No one cares about them because they are not tributes to the terrorists that flew those planes.

BTW, muslims have a long history of building mosques and other monuments on the sites of religious victories or victories over infidels.

just a wiki answers page, but i'm too lazy to do more research.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_muslims...med_victory_on

[bafbrian]

Those 2 mosques were there before the attacks and the fact that no one has said anything negative about them proves your own, and Blender's, point wrong. No one cares about them because they are not tributes to the terrorists that flew those planes.

BTW, muslims have a long history of building mosques and other monuments on the sites of religious victories or victories over infidels.

just a wiki answers page, but i'm too lazy to do more research.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_muslims...med_victory_on

First off, you didn't answer the question regarding a Catholic Church being built 2 blocks from the area of the Oklahoma City building.

Second, unless I misread, I bolded your statement, just want to make sure that this mosque being built is a monument to the terrorists on 9/11, based solely on your opinion. I find it laughable you are quoting WikiAnswers. I suppose you can't read Arabic, any dialect, if so, then you are ignorant to the fact that not all text within the Qu'ran has a direct counterpart in the English language. Why don't you quote the actual passage in the Qu'ran that says that.

Furthermore, while the WikiAnswers source is laughable, it does raise a valid point, every religion has built monuments on lands that they have conquered, Islam is no different from Christianity in this regard, so that point, is null and void.

Lastly, I find it interesting that a person who talks about no government interference is all about interfering and infringing on people's rights regarding property and religion.

[Browning151]

every religion has built monuments on lands that they have conquered, Islam is no different from Christianity in this regard, so that point, is null and void.

So if they were to say, "This mosque is a tribute to those who planned and carried out 9/11", you would have no problem with someone building a monument on American soil, where 3,000 Americans were killed, to commemorate and honor those people who carried out that act of terror?

First off, you didn't answer the question regarding a Catholic Church being built 2 blocks from the area of the Oklahoma City building.

You're attempting to equate a few radical individuals with an entire network of people, from which many videos, writings and audio recordings have been released condemning Americans just for the fact that we are American.

Lastly, I find it interesting that a person who talks about no government interference is all about interfering and infringing on people's rights regarding property and religion.

Maybe I'm loosing my sight, but I have yet to see where anyone said the gov't should step in and stop this. So far all I see is a debate of whether this is a slap in the face to those who died on 9/11 or not.

Why don't you quote the actual passage in the Qu'ran that says that.

It's not whether it says it in the Qu'ran or not, it's that these extremists have interpreted it in their way, to fit their agenda that they should do such things. No, it doesn't represent all muslims, and it doesn't represent all of islam but there are far too many uknowns as to who is funding and backing this mosque as well as examples that Cordoba has built mosques in other areas of "victory" over infidels. And yes, EVERY religion has its extremists and nut jobs, no doubt.

[bafbrian]

So if they were to say, "This mosque is a tribute to those who planned and carried out 9/11", you would have no problem with someone building a monument on American soil, where 3,000 Americans were killed, to commemorate and honor those people who carried out that act of terror?

You're attempting to equate a few radical individuals with an entire network of people, from which many videos, writings and audio recordings have been released condemning Americans just for the fact that we are American.

Maybe I'm loosing my sight, but I have yet to see where anyone said the gov't should step in and stop this. So far all I see is a debate of whether this is a slap in the face to those who died on 9/11 or not.

It's not whether it says it in the Qu'ran or not, it's that these extremists have interpreted it in their way, to fit their agenda that they should do such things. No, it doesn't represent all muslims, and it doesn't represent all of islam but there are far too many uknowns as to who is funding and backing this mosque as well as examples that Cordoba has built mosques in other areas of "victory" over infidels. And yes, EVERY religion has its extremists and nut jobs, no doubt.

I do have a problem with individuals or groups who twist religion to suit their own agenda. If the group who is attempting to construct the mosque were to outright say, "We are building this mosque to commemorate the sacrifices of the hijackers who lost their lives on 9/11", I would have a problem with that. At that point, the purpose of a religious facility is to freely and openly practice religion, not to support any specific political or ideology agenda. Also, there are numerous Americans who condemn Arabs for being Muslims, is it ok if we hate them for that? It's ok if we hate them, but not ok if they hate us? We can debate that back and forth, but it is an irrelevant point.

I bolded the first statement to illustrate my point, people are grouping all Muslims as terrorists because of the actions of a few; look at all those people who protested. Concurrently, people who lost loved ones are split on this, some agree that they should be allowed to because of the right granted to them under the Constitution while other disapprove because of a sensitivity issue. I can see this from both points, but at the end of the day, we are not governed by emotions and feelings, although they do guide our decisions, our emotions and feelings are not the letter of the law. We cannot simply restrict someone's rights merely because we disagree with the decisions they have made, I know I would love to take away the Phelp's Family of the Westboro Baptist Church rights to freedom of speech and expression because I do not believe that "God created IEDs" is right, but it is their right and I can only voice my opposition, not restrict their rights because I disagree with the message; if we were supposed to obey our emotions and feelings as the letter of the law, then it would have written into the Constitution, but since it is not, we are governed by the Constitution and subsequent laws.

But still, my question has yet to be answered, If someone advocated building a Catholic Church within two blocks of Oklahoma City Building bombing, would it receive this same level of disapproval? Is not the same as what is happening in New York near Ground Zero? What about the Mosque that supposed to be built in Murfeesboro, TN, how come it didn't get built? Why don't you research that and tell me what is the same and different in that case and the Ground Zero mosque. I can guarantee you that the primary similarity and opposition as to why people are opposed amongst these two instances is one thing, Islam.

There will always be questions surrounding how projects are funded and their intent, how come they are not front page news on a regular basis?

Lastly, the second bold statement is aimed BanginJimmy, hence why I quoted his reply. If you had read he previous responses in other threads, then you would know the reasoning behind that statement, but since you haven't, I recommend you do so, along with others who post in this section so that you can understand what some other in here believe. By doing so, it would further your knowledge and allow for a better discussion.

[BanginJimmy]

Lastly, the second bold statement is aimed BanginJimmy, hence why I quoted his reply. If you had read he previous responses in other threads, then you would know the reasoning behind that statement, but since you haven't, I recommend you do so, along with others who post in this section so that you can understand what some other in here believe. By doing so, it would further your knowledge and allow for a better discussion.

I have no clue what you are trying to get at here.

[Browning151]

I can see this from both points, but at the end of the day, we are not governed by emotions and feelings, although they do guide our decisions, our emotions and feelings are not the letter of the law. We cannot simply restrict someone's rights merely because we disagree with the decisions they have made, I know I would love to take away the Phelp's Family of the Westboro Baptist Church rights to freedom of speech and expression because I do not believe that "God created IEDs" is right, but it is their right and I can only voice my opposition, not restrict their rights because I disagree with the message; if we were supposed to obey our emotions and feelings as the letter of the law, then it would have written into the Constitution, but since it is not, we are governed by the Constitution and subsequent laws.

I agree with you on this 100%. We are a nation that is governed by the rule of law, not the rule of man. Once again though, no one has contested the right of anyone to build whatever they please there, many have simply expressed that they feel that building the mosque in that area is disrespectful of those who died there, as well as distasteful in many way. Yes, under our Constitution they have every right to do it. This is where I revert to my Libertarian views, by law I conclude that they should without a doubt build it without retribution, however many people cannot look at this as simply a question of law, including myself, many feel it is an act of defiance and provocation to western society. That's not to say though, that the government should step in, in any way shape or form. While we are governed by laws, perception and reality are very different things and there is a fine line to walk between the way that people believe they are being treated and what is the letter of the law. Imam Rauf himself has said that people who feel fear and oppression may act out in acts of terrorism, this is no different with the people of America. With political correctness run amuck in this country many Americans are beginning to feel that their constitution, their government and their way of life are being trampled upon in the name of tolerance and acceptance. It is only a matter of time before people begin to react to that, and that may come as violence or terrorism itself. While I do not condone such drastic actions I can understand where people may feel they may have been pushed to such extreme measures to protect themselves and their country. I can only see this ending badly for those who choose to worship at this center and that would be reason enough for me, as a leader, to consider relocation, if nothing more than for the protection of my fellow worshipers.

Lastly, the second bold statement is aimed BanginJimmy, hence why I quoted his reply. If you had read he previous responses in other threads, then you would know the reasoning behind that statement, but since you haven't, I recommend you do so, along with others who post in this section so that you can understand what some other in here believe. By doing so, it would further your knowledge and allow for a better discussion.

I have read this entire thread, from the beginning. You quoted him because he said it was a tribute to the people who carried out the attack, and then asked where that was stated in the Qu'ran, and I addressed that in my previous post.

[BanginJimmy]

First off, you didn't answer the question regarding a Catholic Church being built 2 blocks from the area of the Oklahoma City building.

Second, unless I misread, I bolded your statement, just want to make sure that this mosque being built is a monument to the terrorists on 9/11, based solely on your opinion.

I should have been more clear. I'm not saying anything about the motivation behind the location. I am saying that the preception is that the mosque is being built as a monument.

I find it laughable you are quoting WikiAnswers. I suppose you can't read Arabic, any dialect, if so, then you are ignorant to the fact that not all text within the Qu'ran has a direct counterpart in the English language. Why don't you quote the actual passage in the Qu'ran that says that.

No I cant read it or speak it. Good thing for the internet. I did find what I was looking for and I should have stuck with my original thinking on this. Its not a in koran, but it is a muslim custom to build a mosque on the site of a muslim victory. That is an indisputable fact.

every religion has built monuments on lands that they have conquered, Islam is no different from Christianity in this regard, so that point, is null and void.

Actually it isnt. "because he did it" isnt a valid reason.

Lastly, I find it interesting that a person who talks about no government interference is all about interfering and infringing on people's rights regarding property and religion.

Actually I am not. You will not find a single place where I have said the govt should step in and prevent the construction.

What I am saying that in some cases perception is more real than reality. In this case the mosque looks like a monument to the terrorists. If this was about unity, like Cordoba says, they would realize that this is a very divisive subject and will only cause further resentment and mistrust. The fact that this thread is even here is proof of that.

[ISAtlanta300]

I should have been more clear. I'm not saying anything about the motivation behind the location. I am saying that the preception is that the mosque is being built as a monument. .

At last, the truth is revealed. What did I say? Paranoia. Public perception about Muslims.

[BanginJimmy]

At last, the truth is revealed. What did I say? Paranoia. Public perception about Muslims.

With absolutely nothing to back that up right?


Oh and perception and paranoia are 2 very different things. You might want to find a dictionary and look up the 2 words.