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.

 

Your 2 cents on the Ground zero Mosque yea or nay and why ?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lostinthedarkness
 

I'm all for "rights" but at some point common sense has to kick in.
This is simply insult to injury.
We go through great pains to promote political correctness in this country. News and sports casters lose their job over such issues of political correctness.
Yet, we are going to wink at a victory mosque being built so close to ground zero. Why not just convert the White House to a mosque, that way they would have their mosque and a muslim leader already in place.
Seeashrink




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeashrink
Yet, we are going to wink at a victory mosque being built so close to ground zero.


Don't be silly.

The supposed ''victory'' aspect of the mosque is only in your imagination.

Most Muslims in NYC will look at it as a decent new mosque to worship in.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ACochis1
 



Do we bow to public pressure or do we follow the rules that our nation is founded on .

To follow the rule of law it should be built to follow public pressure is to cave in and refuses it to be built . Thats what we are facing here .



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I refuse to condemn a whole group of people on the acts of a minority .

That is the hard part about following the rule of law allowing things you disagree with but are protected under the law .



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I don't see why they shouldn't build there. It is not on ground zero, but blocks away.

I don't believe the official story of 9/11 or hate the Arabs/Muslems like the Bush administration worked so hard to get all of us to do.

Let them build it.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
At first, I wasn't sure. But after reading about what they actually do in the mosques, I'd say they should not be allowed to build mosques anywhere. I mean, we would basically be supporting their right to be intolerant towards us?

I say they need to learn to tolerate us first.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by scobro
I say nay.

Nothing should ever be built there again,unless a memorial garden,where relatives of the dead can remember their lost loved ones.




Built where?

Within a three-block radius of the area where the towers fell?
That's a pretty wide berth there, dude and there are already buildings in the area.

I wish there was a "meh" option but since there isn't I'll say that since...

A) It's not built on "ground zero" and is 3 blocks away

B) It's a cultural center with a Mosque in it, not a giant Mosque.

C) The Right-wing media has a bunch of uninformed people in a huff for no reason


...I vote "whatever, okay go for it I don't care."

- Lee


[edit on 16-8-2010 by lee anoma]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Nay.
I am one of the nut jobs that believes in total freedom of religion, ba'hai is my faith, I am in love with the world so to speak. Islam is a wonderful religion, as are all the others, but I simply can't abide the location.

If I told you I was going to build a 7th day Adventist church on your father (mother/brother whatevers) grave, and you weren't a 7th day adventist, chances are you wouldn't want it there. Even if you were, doesn't matter, it's sacred to you, because someone you love is resting there. It's a memorial location, if it's not build right over the ashes who cares? But if it is, it's not a question of judging people based on religion, it's a question of common sense.

Even if it was a church being built, don't you think some offense would be warranted? What about a synogogue? It's just Faux Paux because it happens to be the same religion that is alleged to have hit the towers. I still say it was an inside job. But that's neither here nor there.

Muslims have every right to worship, no one has the right to defile a spot many consider sacred. It's just not fair, but denying it in the light of bigotry is something you and your god will have to sort out, and if you don't have one, guess I WON'T see you in hell.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Yay. It should be a sign to both Muslims and the American people that Mosques should be a place of understanding and promote only peace and tolerance. It should be used to educate on what being a Mulsim is really all about and dispel the myths of the intolerant.

They should also build a church, a synagogue, a chapel, a buddhist temple, a hindu temple, a shinto shrine and a lovely little peace garden for those of us that care not for organised religion.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Big Nay.

No need for religion in that section, Muslim or Christian or Jehovah's Witness, Satan Worshipers.

It's like us building a huge Christian church where a village was wiped out in Afghan. Does that make sense? Heck no.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Before they wanted to buy that property the NYC council or whoever should have said that they had a diffrent "destination plan " for the ground. The nay should have been said at that moment.For now i think people living near can only object to the place and the height of an eventual minaret.
Of course i am against it, it is another cause where they hijack certain constitution rights to place a monument of triumph, the Cordoba house just like they did with their first triumph and victory in Europe's Peninsula of Spain...
Is not about religion its about decency, they have the city council and mayor to blame, cause we already know what the agenda is of the Cordoba initiative



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
IF it gets built now after all of this bad press it would only stand as a target for anger and hate, a focal point for violence and vandalism.

Regardless of right or wrong, it is literally an issue of public safety and on that premise alone should not be allowed to go forward.



[edit on 15-8-2010 by Fractured.Facade]


And by all means let's ban all free speech because someone might get mad and start a fistfight.

And as a public safety issue without quite the stretch, how about guns. My Gawd, someone could be killed - let's ban them.

And public assembly. Everyone knows you can't have a fight with only one person around.

Or wait, how about if we recognize that if the attack causes us to toss away our freedoms, including freedom of religion, they WON!



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
I am saying that there must be consideration given to any potential threats to public safety.


What is the saying? Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I'm sure there are considerations being given to potential threats around this issue, especially since the MSM has made such a giant deal of this non-issue. They're playing with people's emotions and you're buying it and contributing to it.



The fact that this has national and even international implications at this point should raise several red flags... especially amongst ATS members.


I absolutely agree! And that red flag that's being raised either says,

"Buy the MSM bullcrap and become outraged at this exercise of first amendment rights!" or it says,

"Beware when the MSM plays on the emotional issues of a people regarding race, religion or politics!"

Read that second one again... Because that's what's happening here.



By all means build the damned thing, without any regard for potential problems, but also when or if something bad comes of this, don't come back here bitching about it after the fact.


So, because it's being approved, that automatically means there's NO regard to potential safety problems? Why would you assume that?

And if something bad does come of this, I will bitch. I will condemn the people who take any illegal action against the mosque. Because I support our Constitution and I support the people's rights, no matter what religion they are and no matter how they express their rights.

[edit on 8/16/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reluctant yay. while i think its in poor taste to build so close to ground zero, the do have the right under the constitution. Not like this place wont be heavily monitored by the cia/fbi/hls forces anyways



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I'm voting "Nay".

It's not a case of this particular congregation having a right to build a place of worship wherever local zoning laws allow it. Their right, in the legal sense, isn't open to question.

The question (for me, at least) isn't 'Do they have a right to build there?', but 'Is it right for them to build there?'.

Allow me to illustrate my thinking by example, if I might. There's no law in Arizona preventing me from carrying a pistol on my hip...and yes, I do indeed exercise that right. One of my close friends, on the other hand, doesn't like guns, and doesn't want them in his house, or near his children. So, when I go over to his place for a weekend game of Warhammer 40K, I should just strap on my Taurus pistol, and carry my pump action shotgun over my shoulder, shouldn't I? After all, I have a legal RIGHT to carry those guns, so why do I leave them at home? Because they offend the people I'm around. Because no matter what is 'legally right', it isn't 'right' to intentionally offend.

I think the 'right' thing to do in this case would be to take up the offers that have been tendered by several groups, to find another location for this mosque, and build it somewhere a bit further from Ground Zero. Why is it so important that this mosque be in this particular site? This isn't the Dome of the Rock...they aren't building a shrine over the Prophet's footprint, or some holy relic...why not relocate, and gain both a decent place to worship, AND some goodwill in the community?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Build it and move on. People spend to much time crying and wyning about the pettiest stuff. Seriously.

[edit on 8/16/10 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Nay.

It should be built elsewhere.

By the very declaration that Islam is a religion of peace, one would think that would include consideration for the wishes of so many of one's fellow men.

The fact is it can be perceived as a victory monument.

Religions by their nature of contemplation of the mysteries should be even MORE perceptive than most, so how could they - with this in mind and goodness of heart - even think to proceed?

[edit on 16-8-2010 by hadriana]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I dont see to many Native American worship places around but there are new world churches everywhere. So whats really being said here??? Equal rights for some but not all? Or just str* hatred for another type of people, again-WACK. And the new world churches are all over the Native American land, were they not tormented into reservations why churches sprang up all over their land even in places many Native Americans lost their lives. UM just sayen not worth an argument. Place of worship are good or bad?
GOOD So..........


[edit on 8/16/10 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I think that its position 2 blocks away from the site is not a problem. There's Catholic church right at the edge of the property. I would encourage a Jewish synagogue as well or a Wiccan grove or any other religion's house of worship in that same area.

Every religion has its bad apples. Prominent extremist nutcase leaders are not representative of the people -- just as David Koresh isn't a good representative of the Christian faith. The 9/11 fruitcakes aren't representative of Muslims (and yes, I know quite a few because they're in my university classes.)

If we allowed sites based on who has the least despicable leaders and least despicable acts and non-controversy in their religious texts, probably the only ones allowed to build any houses of worship ANYwhere would be the very new neopagan religions like the Jedi and the Kemet (Egyptian religion reconstructionists) and the Wiccans.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana

The fact is it can be perceived as a victory monument.


I have heard this before, and the thing that popped into my mind was "so can all the Christian churches on Native American reservations (which were forced on them and they were brutalized so that their religion was almost destroyed.)"

There are other examples of this... once you get that sort of mindset, then the Christian churches in nonChristian nations can be seen as victory monuments as well. It's kind of creepy to me and I'm sure the Christian pastors might disagree.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join