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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
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.


I agree with you that the ruckus is needless, but I think if anyone should be issued cease and desist orders it should be the members of the media and the bloggers who are using it to build the ruckus.

And no, I don't think anyone should actually be issued cease and desist orders.

I have never called anyone on ATS a Christian zealot, a bigot, a racist, etc over this issue, though there have been a few posts that have nearly succeeded in baiting me to (most of these have later been actioned by staff, for which I thank you).

I am getting bored of the constant insinuations that if we defend the Park51/Cordoba House project, we have no sensitivity to the feelings of people affected by 9/11. I am also getting bored of the insinuations that accusations of bigotry are any more prevalent than accusations of elitist liberal Muslim apologetics.

I just visited one of the many threads on this issue, and the most recent post was one that says that there should be no mosques on American soil. Like it or not, people defending this project (many of whom are doing despite a general feeling of dislike for much of what Islam has done) are defending it against the people who don't think they should have the legal right to build as well as those who don't think they have the moral high ground.

To begin with, I was among those who was not convinced they have the moral high ground but was convinced that a) they have the legal right that must be defended and b) it is a matter for the neighborhood to decide, not the rest of NYC and certainly not the rest of the country.

Having looked into the issue I have learned a great deal about the backers of this project and the imam spearheading it. That, combined with the fact that the church I belong to (which has worked with the imam on interfaith projects for years) supports them has convinced me that not only is it right to let them build this community center and mosque, but also that it could be a very good thing for the Tribeca neighborhood and for the future of interfaith relationships in NYC.


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...


If someone could actually find a similar space in the neighborhood but a few blocks further away from the WTC site, I would reluctantly support the idea that they should move it away in order to avoid further unnecessary ruckus. But that's the thing. As far as I know, no one has offered up valuable Lower Manhattan real estate for these purposes. And suggestions to move it outside Lower Manhattan (preferably Tribeca specifically) don't seem reasonable to me.

The imam has had a mosque in the neighborhood for 27 years. He has a good relationship with Christian and Jewish organizations in the neighborhood. They want to build a community center with various facilities which will serve the neighborhood he's a part of. The neighborhood wants it there.


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


What seems so calculated about snapping up a piece of bargain real estate in the neighborhood you have served for decades?




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
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...


Agreed, as was the point of my OP.


Originally posted by seagull
To dismiss concerns is to get whacked upside the head


These are not concerns sorry. If you consider the preservation of rights in the property market between private sellers over mob rule a concern then you should reconsider what you believe in.

Sure, we can make an example saying nobody in their right mind would allow a stripper bar to be built right side to a school but then again equating an entire religion and people to strippers or terrorists or what have you, im sorry, that doesnt work out in logic.


Religious or otherwise. Just because we may, or may not agree on a concern, doesn't make it "pathetic".


Again, those are not concerns. If you consider the equal treatment of all religions a concern then you should reconsider where you stand.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Mob rule? where? I see people expressing opinions. Rightly, or wrongly, that's as much their right, as it is for Muslims to build a mosque. Isn't it? Or is it only mob rule when you disagree?

Where have I said anything about religions not being equal, or worthy of being protected...You won't find it, 'cause I haven't said it. All I have ever said in relation to this issue is, might there not have been someplace a trifle less antagonistic to the sensibilities of other folks?

[edit on 8/17/2010 by seagull]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
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?




There was a New York Times article a couple years ago that gives a pretty good overview of the St. Nick's situation here:

NYTimes

There are various issues, but it's all between the church and the Port Authority which owns the land.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by maybereal11
 


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


My point is that when the constitution interferes with the right wing...damn the constitution. Repeal/amend the 13th Amendment?, 14th amendment? etc. Nuetral constitutional rulings are now being fiercly labeled activist rulings.

Now "Freedom of Religion" is expendable...

What the right wing has in mind for the constitution scares the living hell out of me..

That is my point.


Originally posted by seagull

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

80% of Fox Viewers would disagree with you at present.


Originally posted by seagull

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?


Save that bit. I do not think building the Mosque near ground Zero is a wise move, but I am not willing to trade "Freedom of Religion" for my personal opinion.

Ditto KKK and Freedom of Assembly and Speech...I hate those idiots, but would fight for thier rights as well...because thier rights are MY RIGHTS.

Why is that so hard for some to understand?

President Obama expressed precisely that sentiment and spoke exclusively of citizen RIGHTS with regards to the Mosque and was immediately labeled by right wing outlets "Strongly in Favor of Building The Mosque"

It's gross political rhetoric and contrary to our way of life. Does it sell? Well yes, 80% of Fox Viewers say "Freedom Of Religion" be damned, they shouldn't build the Mosque.

I am not a fan of the right wing demonizing those that believe "Freedom of Religion" is worth fighting for...our Founding Fathers certainly thought the principle was worth fighting for, so do I.

That is my point.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 



I agree with you that the ruckus is needless, but I think if anyone should be issued cease and desist orders it should be the members of the media and the bloggers who are using it to build the ruckus.


Amen. I couldn't agree more.

Regardless of my opinion, it's a tempest in a teapot, and should be treated as such.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Star and agree.

I find myself literally mourning the passing of reasonable political debate in this country.

News outlets used to just report the news. Now it's a ratings race, fuel the fire, no more objectivity. The referee has left the ring.

I keep hoping for ordinary people to stand up and call BS.

It does break my heart...because I do love this country.

The way I see national debate at present... the Dems a D+, the GOP an F- and the TPM just shows up to school drunk with a gun.

I don't like my choices.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


My logic fails you because of your tunnel vision. How on earth can you claim to know the motives of the people who obeject to the mosque? The latest polls show that 43% of Americans hold at least a little bias towards Muslims. But 70% object to the Mosque. It's interesting to see the support of these same people you call bigots for having the mosque in a nearby location vs a site that was damaged by the attack.

And no offense but how dare you refer to me as a bigot. YOu spew the same ignorant tripe as many others who support this issue. You'd have to be an idiot to make the assumption I'm a bigot without knowing anything about me other than my position on this issue.

I love American Muslims. I think we have the most outstanding group of Muslims of any country in the world, unlike most in the middle east where more than half support terrorism. Only 1% of American Muslims find terrorism a justifiable act. I don't care if there is a Mosque on every other block. But not there. I'd object to building a catholic church there if the vatican orchestrated the attack.

This Imam refuses to denonce the group that performed the attacks. How is that healing? He supports implementing Sharia Law in the US. He wants to promote a legal system here. His funding source is unknown. But that isn't my issue. I simply think that it isn't a fundamental right to build it there and I think it's found objectionable by most of America.

But I object to the fact that a group which treats women as 2nd class citizens is going to be allowed to build in that area as well.

My biggest question is he says his goal is to build bridges. 53% of New Yorkers oppose it. 38% support it. About 70% of the country objects to it. If your goal is to build bridges then why knowingly seek to inflame the very same people you want to build a bridge with?

So many people want to call objectors bigots. When that isn't the issue at all. Maybe for some, but not most. Heealthy debate on the subject is great. But you throwing around bigot is no different than people playing the race card when illegal immigration is brought up. And no offense because you find my logic faulty certainly doesn't make it so. Perhaps your perception of reality is faulty. But to resort to labeling people is a sad way to have an intelligent discussion.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
I don't care if there is a Mosque on every other block. But not there. I'd object to building a catholic church there if the vatican orchestrated the attack.



Not looking for a fight. But just a quick point of clarity.

The Muslim faith did not attack us on 9-11. Al-Qaeda did. Osama Bin Laden...that guy that we went into afghanistan to find.

Were they Muslim? Yes, Islamic Extremist Terrorists to be specific.

But the analogy of the Vatican doesn't hold IMO.

It would be similiar to holding the Vatican accountable for Abortion Clinic Bombings and the shooting of doctors, christian terrorist organizations etc.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrJay1975
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


How on earth can you claim to know the motives of the people who obeject to the mosque?


How can you claim the motives of individuals behind all churchs being built are pure? The same for jews? The same for hindus? Just because they are muslim I should be suspicious of their motives? Actions speak louder than words and I do not label an entire peoples over the actions of a few.


The latest polls show that 43% of Americans hold at least a little bias towards Muslims. But 70% object to the Mosque.


Again I am not concerned about how many people support this. When Obama was pushing for the public option and the majority of people supported this, the rightwing talking point was that we live in a republic not a democracy. The views of the majority do not have hold over our rights.


It's interesting to see the support of these same people you call bigots


The bigots are the individuals calling for the government Federal/state/local to take action and prevent this private property/building sale from going through. The bigots who feel that muslims are a special exception to rights in this country.


And no offense but how dare you refer to me as a bigot. YOu


How dare I? But I assumed people like you were proud? Maybe this thread outta bring up your confidence:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


spew the same ignorant tripe as many others


So my argument that you as an outside bystander have no basis for forcing discrimmination over a private sale is ignorant?

My argument that not all muslims are terrorists? This is ignorant?

What exactly was ignorant again? Im curious.


I love American Muslims.


Until they decide to build a mosque and practice their religion, then you have a problem with them and question their motives. The people behind this mosque are at most American muslims.


I think we have the most outstanding group of Muslims of any country in the world, unlike most in the middle east


Oh so now its not American muslims, its those other ones right? Way to go to shift goal posts. Mind you American muslims are behind the building of this mosque.


This Imam refuses to denonce the group that performed the attacks.


You should really watch John steward on that matter. The imam did not state he supported those terrorists however he state that America's involvement in middle eastern affairs over the years contributed to this mess. Glenn Beck ironically said the same thing afew months back as did many people on this forum and outside. I believe so and that does mean I support the actions of that group. Its well known that those terrorists did not attack our nation at random. it was unacceptable but the motives were not random.


How is that healing?


Oh so now you want to talk about healing huh? You are exactly the problem to the healing process. You and your ilk, and its too bad your stepping back on your previous post. I must like dealing with somebody that atleast tries to stick to their guns. I don't see shouting down muslims, labelling all of them and blocking their constitutional rights a healing process. In my opinion this mosque with the catholic church down the road and the jewish synogogue will be essential to that healing process.


He supports implementing Sharia Law in the US.


Do yourself a favour an get off the propaganda websites. No where did he state or support such (the imam) and he was actually one of the cooperators with the FBI against terrorists. He even appears on Fox news at one time and not for any of his 'radical' views.

Right.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
Both sides are jerks (the exact term I use rhymes with 'trucking glass bowls') . One side needs to take the high road and back down.


I disagree. Depending which side needs to take the high road, people should speak up and defend the rights of these american citizens to establish a place of worship. We should not stay silent and give chance to a mob of people to dictate whenever rights are being carried out. The mosque is going ahead and yet people are still trying to interfere in doing this. It should not be ignored, people should not 'backdown'.

In anycase the core point of my thread is this argument that islam is a violent religion that has no business building up this mosque in there area when there are number of christian churches where christianity could be held equally accountable, it is hypocritical. People should not stay silent when a mob of people wish to pressure their beliefs over somebodies right.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]


Your long-winded and overly complex post would have the merit of truth if Christians were trying to interfere with the construction of any mosque in New York City. What they wanted was for a mosque not to be built so close to ground zero. Move it a few blocks away and it wouldn't be a problem. And FYI, it's not just Christians opposed to this mosque, it's anyone who values a little common-sense based sensitivity for those who died on 9/11, their families and friends. And this is what baffles me - liberals are all about political correctness these days, right? So when it comes to standing up for the victims of crimes by a minority, why do liberals always side with the minority and not the victims? Deciding to not build the mosque at this location was the right call and I applaud them for that.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by black cat
Move it a few blocks away and it wouldn't be a problem.


oh yes yes yes. So the opposition just wants to pressure government officials and mosque sponsors to move alittle down the road?

You see at the end of the day by cutting down peoples rights that little bit you are still cutting down rights. And don't tell me that nobody is advocating that the mosque be forcibly removed, that is what many people are advocating for. I don't care if the mosque is forced to move just 1 mile down the road, you are still forcing them to move, still invading their constititional rights. 'that little bit' doesnt cut it.


And FYI, it's not just Christians opposed to this mosque, it's anyone who values


Ah yes, because white american christians are pleasant to eye for the rest of the nation. Damn straight its not only christians, that was not my argument. In anycase people seem to sit well with fanatical christianity and what it has done to this country despite the equal comparison to islam. Why are Christians treated much better than muslims in this country? Im sure you know that answer, and obviously you'll pull a fuss and insist what not, but deep down you know as damn well its the truth.


a little common-sense based sensitivity for those who died on 9/11,


Yes, how insensitive for the muslims being muslim ya know? Obviously those attackers were representitive of all muslims that day. But you know what? Bush and his christian fanatics sent over 4000 troops to their deaths over a war of lies, where another further 100,000 Iraqis died, many of them muslims, and people like you keep shut over this fact.

"A little common-sense bases sensitivity". You don't have a clue.


liberals are all about political correctness these days, right?


So saying those hijackers don't represent every muslim, this is political correctness?

Is political correctness preserving the rights of americans regardless of political affiliation?

Political correctness. Another bing word from you fellas.


So when it comes to standing up for the victims of crimes by a minority,


Once again you are equating the muslims behind this mosque and all other muslims as being responsible for 9/11. Get off it.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by maybereal11
 


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


My point is that when the constitution interferes with the right wing...damn the constitution. Repeal/amend the 13th Amendment?, 14th amendment? etc. Nuetral constitutional rulings are now being fiercly labeled activist rulings.

Now "Freedom of Religion" is expendable...

[edit on 17-8-2010 by maybereal11]


The Constitution is obviously like the Bible: You only need to follow those parts you agree with...



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
www.jihadwatch.org...




here it is straight out,

it's proposed close enough not to intrude on GZ proper, for the port authority, but hey, it's only lines on a map, eh?

cheeky funding and other dubious intentions.


sorry if i offend and/or this has been posted before.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Some Muslims question mosque near ground zero

news.yahoo.com...

Abdul Cader Asmal, past president of the Islamic Council of New England, an umbrella group for more than 15 Islamic centers, said some opponents of the $100 million, 13-story project are indeed anti-Muslim. But he said many Americans have genuine, understandable questions about Islam and extremism.




"The total absence of Feisal Rauf has a `Where's Waldo' quality that is maddening in itself," U.S. Muslim writer Aziz Poonawalla, who supports the center, told the blog ordinary-gentlemen.com. "I'm quite capable of defending Rauf against some of the accusations against him, but am not inclined to carry his water for him while he gallivants about the globe."


[edit on 18-8-2010 by sweetliberty]

[edit on 18-8-2010 by sweetliberty]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


"........ Yes, how insensitive for the muslims being muslim ya know? Obviously those attackers were representitive of all muslims that day. But you know what? Bush and his christian fanatics sent over 4000 troops to their deaths over a war of lies, where another further 100,000 Iraqis died, many of them muslims, and people like you keep shut over this fact.

REPLY: Unfortunately there are those such as yourself that still cling to the error that Bush lied about anything; he did not. Every intel group from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and others agreed that Saddam had WMD's. Search for "The Mother of All Connections" and you can take from it what you will. Getting rid of Saddam had nothing to do with Christianity, but instead the idea of individual liberty and freedom for 20-some million people. Ask them what they think of it. Ask those with purple thumbs, who faced possible death by bombs and snipers what they think of America's sacrifice for them.

The mosque has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion; it is about common sense and common decency, and a respect for those who lost their lives on 9-11. Most everyone brings up the Muslim religion as being the issue. Islam is not a "race," so the idea of bigotry is misguided at best. Islam is a way of life..... a very cruel, backward, 17th century way of life, which has religion as but a small part.

As far as Islam goes, the "extremists" are those who do not speak out, those who are moderate. All others are just believers of Islam.... the belief in the grand world-wide caliphate; the extermination of all those who are not of the Muslim faith, which their (un)"holy book" calls for. There are 23 other mosques in New York, and plenty of other places to build, which would be less expensive. Just calling it "Cordoba" is an indication of the concept of it.

As to your mention of their Constitutional rights, Muslims care little of our constitution, instead wanting Sharia law for their own little enclaves across the country. It is only when THEY are affected that they depend on our constitution.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by zappafan1]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Just as I did at ground zero, if this place is built (which I doubt), someone will spray the entrances with pig blood and salt. Rauf has said some interesting things in his book, of how he feels about America. Just like the ACLU, they will try and use our own constitution to bring America down to the level of the rest of the world.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
edited because I shouldn't have posted in anger


[edit on 8/18/2010 by americandingbat]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Unfortunately there are those such as yourself that still cling to the error that Bush lied about anything; he did not. Every intel group from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and others agreed that Saddam had WMD's.


The same intel groups that armed these guys in the 80s? Those intel groups? And you are just to take what they said and Bush said for truth?

Fact was no WND's were found. Fact is many Christians pushed for the war.


Getting rid of Saddam had nothing to do with Christianity, but instead the idea of individual liberty and freedom for 20-some million people.


The christian establishment supported it, and im sorry the war was not about the freedom of 20 million people. It was about the claim of WND's in existence. In addition to this since when did the US get to choose who to liberate? millions of people died in Africa and parts of Asia during the 80's and 90's by their governments, and yet Iraq is all of a sudden singled out? You still buy that garbage??

Hey should we invade Iran as well? Because thats the exact logic you are using there.


The mosque has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion; it is about common sense and common decency,


It has to do about allowing the mosque to be build there. People are opposing the mosque and calling for state officials to bar them from doing so based on their religious beliefs.

If being muslim contrary to your common decency? Are all muslims terrorists?


As to your mention of their Constitutional rights, Muslims care little of our constitution, instead wanting Sharia law


And once again may I remind you like I reminded the others here. We are not a dictatorship, we are a republic, we values freedoms here, so stop comparing us to other countries and their invasives laws. We are contrary to that belief.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





Ah yes, because white american christians are pleasant to eye for the rest of the nation.


Ahh I see youve broken out the ol standby RACE card again....havent you broken that thing yet?

I love liberal ideology, if we oppose you, we are either bigots or racists....WERE the ones that are intolerant, and WERE the ones who wont have a debate about issues.........

All the while the liberal left tries to automatically discredit and shut down ANY discussion by calling you RACIST or a BIGOT!

Doesnt sound very compassionate or open minded to me........




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join