toldailytopic: How do you feel about building a mosque at ground zero?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Saying I'm asserting rights over obligations doesn't make it so.
That's my Clete impression.
You're probably too new to recognize that though. lain: And we differ on our answers to those questions, and the context in which those questions are being asked.
I don't know. I wasn't there. I do know that I'm not hollering at anyone though, if that's what you are implying.
I didn't say he didn't. I, apparently, differ on what that means. I don't see meeting sinners where they are to mean enabling, or catering.
:squint: We must mean different things by "enabling".
Remember when I said meeting the sinners where they are doesn't mean enabling? Forgiving them doesn't either.
You see meanness where there is none.
I haven't seen it. :idunno:
:squint: Probably not. Now, try proposing a relevant hypothetical.
Actually, I didn't say anything. You didn't even ask.
Until you show that pushing Sharia Law is the goal or they are trying to claim a victory over us, there isn't much to say. I read that article and it isn't terribly convincing. It's something to keep an eye on, but nothing more.
Also, I felt compelled to point out that your WND article agrees that this isn't even at "ground zero".
Kmoney
It isn't just you but is now the norm in America. How many times have you heard about gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, and whatever else? Yet how many times have you heard about gay obligations, women's obligations, minority obligations and whatever?
Even the thought seems ludicrous. You will say it is absurd. How can you refer to group obligations when we are one nation? It is the same with rights. We just don't realize it.
It is the same with the mosque. The developers have the right to build it but what are their obligations to the nation?
We should start a thread on "Assimilation." Do we still believe that people should come to America with the intent to support its ideas? It seems to me that the modern trend is to come to America to transform it and to satisfy their ideas as is the desire to implement Sharia law.
I didn't write you were mean but only asked how you deal with their suffering. Do you lecture them on how wrong it is or do you put yourself in their position and try to alleviate it?
You have to dig inside these articles. It is natural for the developers to seek to impose Sharia Law. I wouldn't doubt that they feel something like Christendom missionaries going into the jungle to educate the natives into the "right" way of believing.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/pub...nection-to-sharia-law-push-being-ignored.html
The mosque is bad for ground zero not just because it is insensitive to those suffering the effects of 911 but also because it is a Sharia mosque which opposes assimilation into the American ideals in favor of spreading its own ideals and laws.
It isn't just you but is now the norm in America. How many times have you heard about gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, and whatever else? Yet how many times have you heard about gay obligations, women's obligations, minority obligations and whatever?
Even the thought seems ludicrous. You will say it is absurd. How can you refer to group obligations when we are one nation? It is the same with rights. We just don't realize it.
It is the same with the mosque. The developers have the right to build it but what are their obligations to the nation?
We should start a thread on "Assimilation." Do we still believe that people should come to America with the intent to support its ideas? It seems to me that the modern trend is to come to America to transform it and to satisfy their ideas as is the desire to implement Sharia law.
I didn't write you were mean but only asked how you deal with their suffering. Do you lecture them on how wrong it is or do you put yourself in their position and try to alleviate it?
You have to dig inside these articles. It is natural for the developers to seek to impose Sharia Law. I wouldn't doubt that they feel something like Christendom missionaries going into the jungle to educate the natives into the "right" way of believing.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/pub...nection-to-sharia-law-push-being-ignored.html
The mosque is bad for ground zero not just because it is insensitive to those suffering the effects of 911 but also because it is a Sharia mosque which opposes assimilation into the American ideals in favor of spreading its own ideals and laws.
It is obvious tht imam Rauf says certain things in English and others in Arabic. Consider Walid Shoebat's translations from Arabic in the following short video.
Imam Rauf's motives are not as pure as the driven snow as too many are prone to believe. His intent is the spread of Sharia law. Not appropriate for Ground Zero.
http://www.shoebat.com/videos/foxFriendsMosque2.php
Imam Rauf's motives are not as pure as the driven snow as too many are prone to believe. His intent is the spread of Sharia law. Not appropriate for Ground Zero.
http://www.shoebat.com/videos/foxFriendsMosque2.php
I watched him translating bits and pieces of mostly context free ideas that he then spins toward his particular agenda.
Now about actual quotes, from the source and suggesting an overthrow of our institutions or in support of any of these broad claims?
You want indirect examination? Okay. Here's a bit from an article in the Huffington Post:
"Imam Feisal has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance," Walter Isaacson, head of The Aspen Institute told the Huffington Post. "He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. Some of this work was done under the auspices of his own group, the Cordoba Initiative."
I don't know anyone who thinks that, though I hear people who oppose the mosque making those sorts of statements about people who think they're supporting a thinly reasoned bigotry, which is what it boils down to.
Which you haven't established beyond the declaration.
Which this isn't.
lain:
In America, there are just obligations and rights. Everyone is supposed to get the same.
Yep. Hence, the term "equal rights." With equal rights come equal obligations.
To obey the law.
That would be very odd, as the vast majority of those coming to live in America are Hispanic Catholics.
From the videos of demonstrators, it's more like viciousness.
Far as I can tell, the bigots seem to think the innocent Muslims killed on 9/11 don't count at all. All that whining about "insensitivity" when they aren't even willing to grant humanhood to Muslims.
So you're suggesting that we should deport any person who wants to establish religious ideas as law?
Some familes of 9/11 victims join other group in support of mosque
Nick, maybe you should contact these families and inform them that they are not grieving properly and that their politicization of 9/11 and their support of this mosque is an insult to their family members that died.lain:
Nick, maybe you should contact these families and inform them that they are not grieving properly and that their politicization of 9/11 and their support of this mosque is an insult to their family members that died.
lain:
A few months ago, the loony right was heaping insults and derision on the families of 9/11 victims:
"The 9/11 widows are witches and harpies. You can't argue with them. You just have to listen."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003046860_ann08.html
But now, they've found a political use for them, and are wailing and grieving at the "insensitivity" to their pain.
When they aren't calling them "witches and harpies."
"The 9/11 widows are witches and harpies. You can't argue with them. You just have to listen."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003046860_ann08.html
But now, they've found a political use for them, and are wailing and grieving at the "insensitivity" to their pain.
When they aren't calling them "witches and harpies."
Some familes of 9/11 victims join other group in support of mosque
Nick, maybe you should contact these families and inform them that they are not grieving properly and that their politicization of 9/11 and their support of this mosque is an insult to their family members that died.
There is a difference between being insulting and insensitive.
I asked you a simple question if you would lecture a person who has been psychologically hurt or if you would try to alleviate their suffering. That is the issue. Instead of a person, the question relates to all those having suffered the effects of 911 at Ground Zero. You either prefer to lecture them or try and alleviate their suffering by keeping this political Sharia cultural Center away from Gound Zero and not allow it to be built on a site where a building was brought down in the attack.
Barbarian
Does this mean that you are against politically correct laws that favor one group over another such as the designation of "hate crimes?"
Actually it is the opposite. Without the voluntary recognition of obligations, efforts towards rights will require increased government control and the loss of freedom.
This is the way of secularism. Freedom requires the collective voluntary obligation to do the right thing.
What is odd about that? Do Hispanic Catholics have the obligation to assimilate into American ideals or should they ignore them?
I cannot believe you wrote that with a straight face. Do you mean that asking a political Sharia Mosque to move from Ground Zero as an act of consideration to others is an attack on humanhood?
I watched him translating bits and pieces of mostly context free ideas that he then spins toward his particular agenda.
Now about actual quotes, from the source and suggesting an overthrow of our institutions or in support of any of these broad claims?
You want indirect examination? Okay. Here's a bit from an article in the Huffington Post:
"Imam Feisal has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance," Walter Isaacson, head of The Aspen Institute told the Huffington Post. "He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. Some of this work was done under the auspices of his own group, the Cordoba Initiative."
I don't know anyone who thinks that, though I hear people who oppose the mosque making those sorts of statements about people who think they're supporting a thinly reasoned bigotry, which is what it boils down to.
Which you haven't established beyond the declaration.
Which this isn't.
The bottom line is that you believe in Rauf and I don't. Walid Shoebat grew up with this mindset so sees it for what it is. You need to believe in all this Interfaith sweet talk. I know it is nothing but political manipulation for the purpose of increasing the influence of Sharia Law in the United States. He says it like it is.
http://www.shoebat.com/arabsSpeak.php
No, the bottom line is that you think it's kosher for Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11 to be encouraged to abandon their plans to build a house of worship because some victims and a great many people conflate their cause with the actual villains of the piece.
As I said elsewhere, there's no virtue to be found in that capitulation to unreasoned and broad brush bias. It's wrong and should be resisted.
Like I said, he was a zealot with an unreasonable perspective and he still appears to suffer from the tendency.
I believe that men of good conscience, whatever their faith, have to learn to coexist peacefully and respect our fundamental right to differ.
Rather, you believe it to be. Now I won't try to argue you out of your belief that rain is made of maple syrup, but don't expect me to put it on my flapjacks. :nono:
One of many reasons I'd probably crack a beer if she was ever struck with a calamity that rendered her comatose.
TH
A Sharia Mosque is a political organization. Calling it a house of worship is an insult to well meaning Muslims.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/salim_mansur/2010/08/27/15165446.html
Typical Interfaith rubbish. People of good conscience already do this. The trouble is that they are few and far between and rarely seek the power that is so attractive to the con artists that take advantage of all these gullible people spouting their Interfaith platitudes.
I've just found it more advantageous to take off my rose colored glasses. It allows me to admit the callous insensitivity that takes advantage of human suffering for the sake of naive platitudes that only serve to further the power hungry wishing to further Sharia law in America
A Sharia Mosque is a political organization. Calling it a house of worship is an insult to well meaning Muslims.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/salim_mansur/2010/08/27/15165446.html
Typical Interfaith rubbish. People of good conscience already do this. The trouble is that they are few and far between and rarely seek the power that is so attractive to the con artists that take advantage of all these gullible people spouting their Interfaith platitudes.
I've just found it more advantageous to take off my rose colored glasses. It allows me to admit the callous insensitivity that takes advantage of human suffering for the sake of naive platitudes that only serve to further the power hungry wishing to further Sharia law in America
As with the editorial that you really should have presented as such (a news article it isn't), a great deal of smoke pretending to be fire--presumption without documentation and conclusion absent evidence.
"I believe that men of good conscience, whatever their faith, have to learn to coexist peacefully and respect our fundamental right to differ."
Then it isn't rubbish. You just don't like it when someone who disagrees with you says it. Peculiar.
Same comment. I don't find that sort of cynicism either helpful or accurate. But suit yourself.
I don't think slapping blinkers on in their stead was the way to go though. :nono:
The sentiment previously expressed, one you found right enough in people who don't disagree with you, isn't a platitude because someone who suspects that you are a paranoid cynic says it. And there's nothing insensitive about wanting a rational foundation for the sort of thing you're championing. Nor does anyone demanding that sort of proof take advantage of anyone. Rather, your side requires all of that and it's a pity you can't see it.
This is how far we have sunk. Just the simple concern for our fellow man is considered paranoia.
Instead of leaving Ground Zero free of politics which would be the human thing to do in respect to 911, we feel it our sacred obligation to contaminate it with everything possible during its time of weakness in the name of social justice.
"There is one, and only one, thing in modern society more hideous than crime namely, repressive justice." Simone Weil
Dear lady, sometimes I wonder with your "lucid madness for truth," how you made it to 34.
Somehow we've made it our duty to shove this social justice down the throats of people even by intentionally demeaning the psychological value of 911 on the human psych. Instead of having it serve the purpose of respectful remembrance, efforts for the mosque are a con job being pushed as an Interfaith project which in reality is nothing more than the means to further Sharia law on the ashes of the dead justified by feel good platitudes.
How lovely.
No, it's by and large the attempt to suggest that all Muslims be tainted by the acts of a villainous few that does it. Concern for people is still by and large thought of as a good thing.
Which we aren't talking about.
Which you aren't doing.
Principled duty...
Rather, we should feel it necessary to distinguish compassion from injustice. Giving way to the sort of ill thought out nonsense that has swept normally reasonable people into the footprints of those who once interred Americans of Japanese ancestry fosters the sort of attitude that has people attacking Muslims for their faith as though it were of a piece with the savages who flew airplanes into buildings. It's shameful and lamentable and exactly the sort of behavior the enemies of liberty adore.
I don't think you realize how silly you sound doing that...I can almost see you in your powdered wig, handkerchief fluttering.
Seriously, you should cut that out. It's a half step removed from that old Saturday Night Live skit.And don't get me started on why she "lasted" only as long as she did...though I agree it is amazing, if for reasons you wouldn't appreciate.
It's not social justice. It's justice. And the only people you have to shove that down the throats of are tyrants...and bigotry is a sort of tyranny, as is irrationality.
Rather, by conflating compassion with the enabling of our worst, ethnocentric driven bias you demean the value of the former and raise the apparent legitimacy of the latter as a social instrument and a common good. God forbid.
I omit your unsubstantiated claims relating to the purpose of the mosque, given you were offered the opportunity to put meat on those bones and had none.
Last edited:
To Town Heretic....If the Mosque is built, and some fringe Christians blow it up, using Christ's name and some twisted scriptures to support their actions; and thousands are killed, including some Christian visitors to the cultural center, I think we would have a parallel scenario.
1.....Would you support a Christian Church being built on the rubble or within two blocks of the rubble, by Christians who denounced the Christian terrorists who blew up the building?
2......Do you think the city, the government and the mayor would be behind the building project, and in fact, support it to the lengths that Bloomberg et.al. have gone, thus far, with the mosque.
These are obvious questions in regards to hypocrisy. The slew of atheists and agnostics on this forum, have shown their hypocrisy, by not denouncing this building, which they would readily do if it were a Christian Church, or Christian symbol, being built there, or anywhere, under similar circumstances.
I suspect better of you, but the questions have to be be asked, and need to be answered.
1.....Would you support a Christian Church being built on the rubble or within two blocks of the rubble, by Christians who denounced the Christian terrorists who blew up the building?
2......Do you think the city, the government and the mayor would be behind the building project, and in fact, support it to the lengths that Bloomberg et.al. have gone, thus far, with the mosque.
These are obvious questions in regards to hypocrisy. The slew of atheists and agnostics on this forum, have shown their hypocrisy, by not denouncing this building, which they would readily do if it were a Christian Church, or Christian symbol, being built there, or anywhere, under similar circumstances.
I suspect better of you, but the questions have to be be asked, and need to be answered.
Yes. I think that would be appropriate. On the rubble might be hard to understand. Two blocks away, not a problem.
Yes, if say FOX news promoted a controversy to keep it from happening, as they did for the mosque. I figure that the city would probably do it, given the fact that the borough in question supported the building.
Indeed. Would you support the building of such a church, under the circumstances? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like an answer.
Well, let's see what you are, then. Would you support the construction of that Christian church, or not?
Yes, you need to answer this, as I've answered you. Tell us.
- Status