It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The hypocritical opposition against the NY mosque

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





Nope, you don't have to agree with it, but you have no right to lobby the government Federal/local/state to bar them from freely establishing a place of worship.


First off, who said that I was lobbying against it? Like i said, I dont agree with it, but its their right to do so.....

2. If I DID want to lobby against it..........YES i could because that IS MY RIGHT......America.........constitution.........rights.........remember?




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


None of your post has any real life relevance, it's all straw man argument, fear, and nonsense.

Sorry, but Christians also blew up buildings in the name of god. Look up Army of God and find out what they support.

Do I blame all Christians for the actions of Army of God? No, I don't, they are a minority in the whole.

So you can't sit there with any reliability and tell us that your argument is that all Muslims want to destroy everyone or convert everyone because that is a fallacy.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


It is refreshing to hear someone actually say they don't blame a whole group for the actions of some.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 


It's true, you can't blame all of Christianity for the actions of idiots who decide to blow up abortion clinics. The whole religion isn't like that. Same with Muslims. You can't blame all of Islam for the actions of idiots who blow crap up. It doesn't ring true.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
There is something I find interesting about all of this. The hypocritical can go for both sides here.

For instance their are some who are so hell bent on proving their point that they can't see anything else.
They talk down to others (as if they are the only one how can "see" the truth
)

The ironic thing is that they are bonified puppets and easiest for the ptb to use.

I challenge others to step back in silence for a day (at least). When you do, you will see the most amazing picture.

The real hypocrites are the easiest to manipulate. I question if conspiracy theorists really do exist


Thank you,
sl



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Yes Sir, what you say is the truth. It's sad that many have such weak arguments, or that they are just simply so weak minded that they label people into a "group" in order to make their point.

Thank you



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Let me preface this by saying that I am an agnostic. I also value our constitution. But you made an error. You'd fight for one man's right to build a BBQ restaurant next to the mosque, correct? OK, what about the Greek Orthodox Church that stood in the area for many years? They thought they had found a home, they were initially approved to rebuild the church on this site. What happened? A mosque happened. So why would a Greek Orthodox Church be refused and a Mosque be allowed? WHy don't you fight that bit of discrimination? Oh now that the Mosque is going there they started working on a new location for the GOC. Hmmm...

Freedom of Religion doesn't give you the right to build a Mosque wherever you want. It gives you the right to practice your religion/or not practice a religion free of persecution. It has nothing to do about where you are allowed to build a church/mosque/temple. Freedom of Religion is irrelevant. Nobody is banning Mosques in NY.

It's a matter of taste. 5 years after Pearl Harbor was bombed would it be in good taste to build a monument to kamikaze pilots at the site? No. Would you want a monument dedicated to Tim McVeigh at the Alfred P Murrah building? No. Poor taste. Is it cool for that freakshow church to protest funerals of American soldiers? No. It's poor taste but that is a 1st amendment issue. Allowing them to build a monument dedicated to the terrorists that killed the soldier in Arlington National Cemetary would be similar. And in poor taste.

Being as it isn't a freedom of religon issue, why are some of you so hyped up to see something done that the majority of people in the area and in the country find objectionable? The governor said he'd find them state land if the Mosque was denied. But what does it say about you to push so hard for something most of the country finds in poor taste and deems unacceptable? You result to name calling. Rather than simply understanding that many people in that area who lost love ones find it objectionable that an Imam who refuses to condemn the people who killed their families? Why can't you grasp that?

It's not freedom of religion. No Muslims are being prevented from worship. For some people the issue is they don't want this Imam building a Mosque there, some don't want a Mosque there at all, some want the Greek Orthodox Church that stood at the site for 80 years to get their church back 1st, and some people simply hate all Islam after 9/11. None of which has anything to do with Freedom of Religion. And why can't the mosques supporters grasp why people are upset and make an effort to understand, rather than simply calling them names? Why can't they understand that putting the mosque there is inflammatory? Regardless of what you think, it is. Only 20% of Americans support building the mosque at that location. That tells you something.

If they are going to preach tolerance at the mosque then why would they knowingly seek to build it on a site that the American public finds offensive? When they've got other options that won't cause so much friction and are only a few blocks away? WHy won't they disclose the source of their funding? What is to hide? If anything?

Lastly, there are rules for entering a Mosque. Women must sit behind the men or be behind a partition or in a separate room. They are also required to cover their heads with a hijab or some other covering. Don't forget ladies, only loose clothing that covers to the wrists and ankles. Oh don't forget no shoes in the prayer hall either.

My question is this. If this is a public place designed to bring peace, unity and healing then why can't Jane American walk in and be extended the same privleges as a man? Isn't that a bit sexist? I haven't heard anything on that part of the topic.

The point is that it doesn't have to be there. There is no constitutional violation for saying no. But the purpose of building it there is to inflame. If the Imam wanted to promote healing then he'd be more sensitive to the desires of New Yorkers and Americans as a whole. But damn them all, it's going here. THat's where the hypocricy is. The entire reason for building it there, so he claims, is having the complete opposite effect to his intent. So if his intent was pure then he'd move it a few blocks. But that isn't the intent. And to the Imam and everyone here who are calling those who object to it names, I think that you are all sad cases. How could anyone on this planet not understand why there is objection to the Mosque being built there?

And here's the worst part, the Imam endorses the implementation of Sharia Law in the US. By his own definition the brand of religion he's going to practice is actually a political system. Sharia Law is a legal system that rejects the constitution and the American government in its entirety. And if you study Sharia you'd know it isn't compatible with America. But by his definition this precludes the Mosque from being a freedom of religion issue or a separation of church and state issue.

But the true hypocrisy is claiming you wanted to build bridges and promote peace while trying to build your Mosque in the worst place in the entire world to accomplish that feat. The fellow wanting to build the gay bar next to the Mosque proved the hypocrisy when he recieved this message from the Cordoba House, the folks behind the Mosque, "You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog." Hmmm. I think that's the 1st reasonable thing I've heard.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
This Mosque is really becoming a thorn in the side of people. Maybe it needs to be looked at again by the people who have the power to make these types of calls.


Nobody deserves the power of dictating who is allowed to buy property where, or where you choose to establish a place of worship.

My thread is based on the christian hypocrites in the opposition, not necessarily just about whether the mosque should be allowed or not.

So can we also say this about buying health insurance? Or bailing out insurance firms and car companies?

I should have probably put this in the other thread concerning Obamas support. Hey I guees some of the mosque opposers have somthing in common with Obama.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Mailman]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Let me preface this by saying that I am an agnostic.


and that scores you impartiality points on the matter? Not in my eyes.


I also value our constitution. But you made an error. You'd fight for one man's right to build a BBQ restaurant next to the mosque, correct?


Dead incorrect, infact I'd mentioned my support for the rights of those to build their gay bars right next to the mosque. Its all fine by me although I question the profitability of it all.


OK, what about the Greek Orthodox Church that stood in the area for many years? They thought they had found a home, they were initially approved to rebuild the church on this site. What happened? A mosque happened. So why would a Greek Orthodox Church be refused and a Mosque be allowed?


Thats a good question. WHY was it refused? They should have been granted their rights just as the mosque to be built there. Im unsure what your point is here. What? Do you think I'd disagree?

By the way can you link me to the source of this Greek orthodox church? I'd like to see why their rights were ignored as well.


WHy don't you fight that bit of discrimination?


Since when have I not? And WHY are you using two wrongs to justify a right? Somehow because the rights of this church were unknown, all of sudden its right for the mosque to have their rights stripped as well? Is that your logic? Are you using the 'They don't do it in Saudi Arabia' logic?


Oh now that the Mosque is going there they started working on a new location for the GOC.


Yep that is indeed sad. neither should of had their rights stipped period.


Freedom of Religion doesn't give you the right to build a Mosque wherever you want. It gives you the right to practice your religion/or not practice a religion free of persecution.


Freedom of religion does not, but freedom of the markets does. If there is land or a building up for public sale, nobody has the right to restrict a private sale to certain kinds of americans. I cannot create a law preventing you from buying a house in Atlanta because your white, its not my business, its not my place. I cannot come in and tell the seller who he can and cannot sell to. Its not my place, I do not have that right. Unless the seller is prejudice himself the law cannot dictate he discrimminate a buyer based on religion or race or what have you.

So are you correct in saying freedom of religion does not give you the right to build a mosque wherever you want? Obviously. But this is not a mosque being built right on ground zero or in a middle of a national park or on the white house law. Its a private sale.


It has nothing to do about where you are allowed to build a church/mosque/temple. Freedom of Religion is irrelevant. Nobody is banning Mosques in NY.


And yet the opposition protesting infront of this mosque insist it be prevented from being built there because of religion. How can you say with a straight face that religion is somehow irrelevant in this argument and yet its blatantly obvious? If this is not about religion what is it about then?


5 years after Pearl Harbor was bombed would it be in good taste to build a monument to kamikaze pilots at the site? No.


Would it be good taste to ban all japanese from entering and living in Hawaii based on the actions of their ancestors? No. Is it right to ban japanese restarants from being built in a 2 mile distance of Pearl harbour due to the actions of those japanese pilots? No.

Somehow because this is muslim, people like you automatically equate them as terrorists. You are blinded by hate and bigotry. If your proud of it thats all dandy, just don't pretend you are non the sort.


Would you want a monument dedicated to Tim McVeigh at the Alfred P Murrah building? No.


Would you equate all white people as terrorists as the result of what Tim McVeigh did? No. Would you ban all christian building from being built in proximity to the Alfred P Murrah building because of what Tim McVeigh did? No. Your logic fails once again.


Poor taste.


Indeed.


Is it cool for that freakshow church to protest funerals of American soldiers? No.


Is it ok to ban all conservatives and people who voted Republican from attending those funerals because a Republican president sent those soldiers to their deaths? No. Logic fail once again.


Being as it isn't a freedom of religon issue, why are some of you so hyped up to see something done that the majority of people in the area and in the country find objectionable?


Because religion is being used as the reason why these people should not be allowed to privately purchase in that area. Stop acting the fool.

Right.


[edit on 17-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mailman
So can we also say this about buying health insurance?


I dont support this new healthcare bill, never said I did. I was in favour of the public option. Do some more research on my posts before you assume what I said or supported or well whatever?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
So lets see what excuses people have come up in favour of the opposition against the mosque:

-if they can do it in Saudi Arabia then we should be able to do it here.
-two wrongs do make a right.
-Im not saying all muslims are bad, I know some good muslims, but the muslim religion is violent and therefor all muslims are bad and there for that mosque should not be built there.
-Constitutional rights should be taken away from people of certain religions.
-This is not about religion, this is about a mosque being built near to ground zero because muslims are bad.

Honestly pathetic.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


You know what they say? You can spot fake constitutionalists from a mile away when it comes to issues concerning gays or religion.



Bottom line...

"Principles only mean something if you stick by them when they are inconvenient"

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
So lets see what excuses people have come up in favour of the opposition against the mosque:

-if they can do it in Saudi Arabia then we should be able to do it here.
-two wrongs do make a right.
-Im not saying all muslims are bad, I know some good muslims, but the muslim religion is violent and therefor all muslims are bad and there for that mosque should not be built there.
-Constitutional rights should be taken away from people of certain religions.
-This is not about religion, this is about a mosque being built near to ground zero because muslims are bad.

Honestly pathetic.


you forgot the excuse that politicians use...

"It's election season!!!! and I really need to keep this Job. I will go to a Tea Party rally and wipe my butt with the constitution while throttling an "anchor baby" with my free hand if that is what it takes to keep my job."



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
A mosque built near to Ground Zero is not a mosque built on Ground Zero.

That having been said? I don't like the idea of it, personally. That doesn't make me a hater of Islam, or some sort of Christian zealot...or whatever name is in current vogue... It makes me someone who sees this as something that causes a needless ruckus.

Ground Zero is a still lingering wound in many peoples psyches. Why decide to build it right there? Surely there are other places they could have built it? It just seems a bit too deliberately antagonistic...

But...

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with building this mosque, or religious center at that particular spot. Just seems a bit too calculated...

Meh. We'll survive.


edit on by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
By the way can you link me to the source of this Greek orthodox church? I'd like to see why their rights were ignored as well.


Their rights weren't ignored. They are trying to work out a land swap with the Port Authority.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was just south of the WTC; it was crushed when the South Tower fell on it. They want to rebuild it in a slightly different location but have come to some sort of impasse with the Port Authority who own the land they want to build on and had originally agreed to swap the church's old location for the nearby one.

The abandoned Burlington Coat Factory where they are planning the Park51/Cordoba House project is two blocks north of the WTC site -- about 6 blocks in all away from the St. Nick's location.

The land being used was half owned and half leased by a private real estate company (the leased land is owned by Con Edison), both the title and the lease (a long-term lease allowing demolition and rebuilding and with a purchase clause that they are planning to execute once the property has been valued) were purchased by Soho Properties on behalf of the Park51/Cordoba House project.

There is no relationship between the two projects.


edit to add a link to the St. Nicholas website:

St. Nicholas Church

[edit on 8/17/2010 by americandingbat]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Pathetic? No. Wrong? Maybe.

Obviously there are strong emotions attached to this issue...on both sides. It would behoove us, when discussing this issue, to at least attempt to see where the other person is coming from.

Most religions are violent, including Islam. There is no getting around that little fact. Certain sects more so than others...some less so than the usual...

To dismiss concerns is to get whacked upside the head later by that particular concern. Religious or otherwise. Just because we may, or may not agree on a concern, doesn't make it "pathetic".



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


From Fox News
www.foxnews.com...


You Decide

Does denying construction of the mosque near Ground Zero violate the First Amendment?

- Yes, the First Amendment calls for freedom of religion

- No, the First Amendment doesn't say a religious building can be constructed anywhere

- I don't know, can the mosque be built elsewhere?


Right now Total Votes: 25,545, with 80% answering ..

"No, the First Amendment doesn't say a religious building can be constructed anywhere"

How much of our constitution does the right wing want to take red pen to??



[edit on 17-8-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


...and the point you're trying to make is?

You disagree with some viewers of Fox News? So? I disagree on a fairly regular basis with them, too.

People, most of 'em anyway, see the mosque as a needless antagonism. Doesn't mean they're anti first amendment, or even anti Constitution, nor haters of Islam...just means they'd rather not have to deal with the aggravation.

Have you made even the most token of attempts to understand that? If not, how does that make you any different then the right wing?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
By the way can you link me to the source of this Greek orthodox church? I'd like to see why their rights were ignored as well.


Their rights weren't ignored. They are trying to work out a land swap with the Port Authority.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was just south of the WTC; it was crushed when the South Tower fell on it. They want to rebuild it in a slightly different location but have come to some sort of impasse with the Port Authority who own the land


Oh ok, so they were not prevented from purchasing that land based on religious reasons. It was the Port Authority, the owners of the land, that made that decision? Thankyou for that.


Now wheres that other member that spewed utter BS to me to make his point??



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join