FACTS about "Ground Zero" "Mosque"

Wow!!!
Look at what FOX has created.
A cyber argument.
And so I make sure this post stays directly on target, I fully endorse building a Mosque at ground zero or thereabouts and that is my fact.

reply to post by kiwifoot


It's not about winning or losing. It is about RESPECT, as you said. We should respect each others opinions on the matter. But the issue becomes something else entirely when some are trying to actively block the construction of this center when it is well within their right to do so.

Many believe that the Muslims refusing to move the center is a "slap in the face". Quite the contrary, they are showing their solidarity that they refuse to let people group them with a bunch of extremists, terrorists whose motives were more political than religious and they want a chance to prove that we can all get along no matter what your faith, or lack thereof.

Just like it is our duty as American citizens to stand against tyranny when our government is going to far, it is our duty as individuals in America to stand against those who would have you subvert your rights for political/religious reasons/opinions.

p.s. I just saw that you added me as a "respected" foe. I am going to try to focus on the "respected" part and not the foe. I am sorry that you did not respond to my posts as much as I would have liked before you labeled me this way. I thought I was being constructive. Maybe not?

Anybody against this building, is completely ignorant. Muslims and terrorists are not synonymous. Extremists are a very small percentage of Muslims, and it's more disrespectful associating Islam will terrorism, than it is to build a mosque near the WTC site. So many people will say that Muslims are not all terrorists, but then immediately follow it up by saying it's disrespectful to the victims to build there. Don't you realize that that statement directly contradicts the first?

reply to post by nunya13


Good info but a few questions. I was under the impression that it was not so much the construction of the center, but where financing for it was coming from. Attempts to get this information have been ignored by the people trying to build it.

The other issue was the imam's support of terrorist organizations.

Now dont get me wrong, I dont have the answers to the above. If anyone has found this info please post it (I have not come across it yet).

There are other mosques within distance of ground zero, and again I could be wrong, but I thought they were ok due to their non radical viewpoints.

Anyways, not looking to put words into these peopls mouths, but I thought these were the issues, and not so much the building itself.

reply to post by Xcathdra


reply to post by Xcathdra


Here's some more facts for you (I can provide sources if you want but they are easy to find and I'm being lazy):

1. The "terrorist" funding the project as pointed out by Fox News is the Prince of Saudi who is in business with Fox news in the Middle East. Each owns shares in eachother companies to "strengthen their alliance" with eachother and "increase media influence" in the Middle East.

2. I am unsure of the Imam's connections to terrorist, but he has helped our government with counter terrorism efforts.

3. (not so much a fact) I am also unsure of the "extremist viewpoints" of existing mosque's in the area but I have trouble imagining a place with a swimming pool, bookstore, restaurants, 9/11 memorial, day care center that is open to the public as being at risk of promoting extremist views.

reply to post by nunya13


So wait, let me get this straight:

You bring up an argument saying how the Mosque isnt really a Mosque just a mall with a mosque there.


Then, you state how being conquered by muslims is a good thing and we shouldnt worry about it...

Uh.. ya... am i the only one seeing this here?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Good info but a few questions. I was under the impression that it was not so much the construction of the center, but where financing for it was coming from. Attempts to get this information have been ignored by the people trying to build it.

I think the basis for opposition varies a lot.

Some people seem to be opposed to any Muslim building there, regardless of the particulars of the people involved. Some seem to be opposed to any mosque anywhere in the U.S. Some have pointed to allegations about funding, though it's worth noting that none of these allegations have been shown to have any teeth.

Much info about funding and other questions is available in the FAQs at the websites for the two main groups involved:
Park 51
Cordoba Initiative

Basically it boils down to this: they don't have funding yet, so they can't say where it is from. The Park51 group are hoping to qualify for $70 million in tax-exempt bonds available to non-profits that can prove they will be of benefit to the community. In addition, they will be seeking private support.

They have promised to work with government groups to make sure that none of the money comes from terrorist backers.

The other issue was the imam's support of terrorist organizations.

I would recommend reading the Cordoba Initiative FAQ that clarifies Imam Rauf's position on terrorist organizations. He has repeatedly condemned violence done in the name of religion, including suicide bombings, but has refused to specifically label Hamas a terrorist organization because he sees them as also a political group that will have to be included if there is ever to be a peaceful solution to the problems in Israel.

There are other mosques within distance of ground zero, and again I could be wrong, but I thought they were ok due to their non radical viewpoints.

One of the nearby mosques is the mosque that Imam Rauf has led for 27 years. He is a Sufi Muslim, and considered to be very moderate.

reply to post by demonseed


Don't twist my words.

The building is not a mosque in itself anymore than the pentagon is a multi-denominational church because it happens to have one on the premises.

I did not "state" (as you said) it was good to be conquered by Muslims. I clearly was pointing out WHY they chose the name "Cordoba House". It has to do with religious tolerance, not celebrating Muslim conquest. Please reread my OP regarding this claim complete with sources, including an historical description of the way the city was by the city itself.

edit: clarify point

[edit on 30-8-2010 by nunya13]

reply to post by nunya13


Let me see if I understand. It's not a mosque, it's a community center with a mosque. Muslims didn't conquer Cordoba, just ask the conquered, who are now all muslims. Islam is a religion of peace, and if we don't believe you, you'll kill us. Got it. Here's the deal. We're pretty much muslimed out. Given the political climate, It would be a pretty good Idea for you guys to start packing. Nothing bigoted about it, we simply know who and what you are, and most of us have noticed that muslims have a habit of blowing up children and stoning women to death. Other hobbies include crashing planes into tall buildings and chopping the heads off of jews. I know, I know, those are just the extremists. Strangely, you guys love to cheer them on and send them your cash.
We (most American citizens) know who you are, and what you are, and we don't like you. Now go away and take Obama with you.

reply to post by astrogolf


I didn't say Muslims didn't conquer Cordoba. I said the conquer part is not the reason for the name of the cultural center. Please reread my OP regarding this.

reply to post by astrogolf


How can you claim there is "nothing bigoted" about your statement?

Bigoted:

–adjective utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Source

Originally posted by kiwifoot
I just think, that having a "Muslim Centre" so close to the scene where so called Muslim Terrorist killed 3,000 people is in extremely bad form mate.

...

Man, call in the PC Brigade.

Your cognitive dissonance is staggering. You honestly don't see the contradiction in your own post, do you?

You're the one being "PC" by worrying about the Islamic Center being "bad form."

Oh, but you're just being sensitive to the victims, right? That's the VERY DEFINITION of "political correctness."

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts.

Oh, it might cause offense for them to build a religious structure there, so they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the right to freely express your religion, since that right exists in NZ. If your issue with the Islamic Center is the religion involved, then by definition you're denying them their right to freely express their religious faith.

Originally posted by astrogolf

Two can play this game:

Most of us have noticed that Christians have a habit of blowing up abortion clinics and shooting doctors. I know, I know, those are just the extremists.

So no more churches.

[edit on 8/30/10 by mothershipzeta]

Ya know there is quite a bit of double think going on here.

You value the US and the Constitution.

You enjoy and believe in the freedoms.

You believe in the specific part about religious freedom.

You believe the religious freedoms involving muslim buildings around NYC GZ shouldn't be allowed and the government should infringe on the right of that religion to build a religious center in that location

You believe that the muslim religious freedoms and rights should be put on hold.

You believe that the US military is accross the world fighting in two wars to protect the freedoms of this country.

Yet you and many others would let them die in vain because you don't wish to uphold those freedoms when its politicaly inconvienient and emotionally difficult.

Yet you still thank the soldiers for fighting in wars to protect freedoms and rights of the constitution that you dont want the country to adhere to?

So really which is it? Which do you want more?

A country that upholds and defends its freedoms that it grants to ALL citizens of ALL faiths and ALL beliefs at ALL times.

OR

A country that decides what the flavor of the week is for EVERYONE and imposes that believe on everyone and makes it very difficult to express or believe in your OWN faiths/beliefs?

because really you can't have both....be carefull how you chose because there are crazy extremists of ALL religions! That I can guarentee you.

So when those extremists go out and slaugheter in the name of your religious faith and everyone says no to your peacefull church and starts to put conditions on your religious freedom you might understand the point many here are trying to make but fall on def ears.

Just know this one thing if nothing else, YOUR religion is no better, no worse then any other religion and all religions attract bat-S*** crazy loons no religious beliefe is impervious to the insantiy that is human beings.

~sly~







[edit on 30-8-2010 by Sly1one]

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by nunya13

 

Good info but a few questions. I was under the impression that it was not so much the construction of the center, but where financing for it was coming from. Attempts to get this information have been ignored by the people trying to build it.

Oh, Fox News is on the case. They tell us to "follow the money." But they refuse to name the man himself. Why would that be?

www.juancole.com...

Jon Stewart points out that Fox News anchors and guests are vilifying Saudi prince and financier Alwaleed bin Talal as a financial backer of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Muslim-American clergyman who seeks to build a community center in lower Manhattan. The problem: Alwaleed bin Talal is part owner of Fox News.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


I completely agree with you on the "pc" thing and find it highly interesting how the same people that argue against are still using it in this argument when it is they who are guilty of being "pc" in this instance according to their own assertions as to what being "pc" is. That being to require people to subvert their own rights in the interest of not offending someone. It's absolutely mind blowing.

edit: clean up long winded sentence



[edit on 30-8-2010 by nunya13]

reply to post by americandingbat


Have you read the "Koran" and if so which one?

reply to post by ATSROT


Relevance? Especially to the post that you were apparently replying to?

But no, I have not read the Koran/Quran. I have read the same snippets from it that get plastered all over various anti-Islam posts and websites, so I would guess that my view of it has a rather negative bias.

I don't have to like Islam as a religion to support their right to build a community center, or to believe that interfaith communication is a valuable and needed thing in a very diverse city.

Originally posted by americandingbat
reply to post by ATSROT

 

I don't have to like Islam as a religion to support their right to build a community center, or to believe that interfaith communication is a valuable and needed thing in a very diverse city.

Exactly. My feelings about Islam (which are not negative as a whole anymore than my feelings about other religions) have no bearing on my opinion about the building of this center. Their constitutional right to do so does.

Ground Zero consists of just one block on the lower west side of Manhattan. If we were to consider anyplace fragments of buildings, planes or bodies landed to be GZ, then almost all of downtown and Hudson and Harlem rivers would be considered as such. 

Also, it bothers me to no end when people that live in the mid-west and basically anywhere not remotely close to NY/NJ claim this city is not ready for something like this. How do you know? 

The *Cultural Center* is TWO blocks away. It isn't being erected upon GZ or next to it. What it boils down to in my estimation is, "Islamophobia" and jingoistic bigotry.