Attention: There Is Already a Mosque Near the WTC Site

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-First Amendment

Like it or not, they have a right to be there.

Personally, I don't give a damn. Build it there, or don't. As long as I'm given the same respect and Constitutional protection of my rights, I'm utterly indifferent.


TheAssoc.



[edit on 17-8-2010 by TheAssociate]

reply to post by AceWombat04


Why do you ignore the evidence that these fundamentalist Moslems have been killing people everywhere they go in the world. Why do you ignore the fact that there are teachings endorsing this kind of violence in Islam?

What more proof do you need?

Do you not see the connection?

You can not promote the teachings of killing people. It is a totally different issue than the religious freedom.

reply to post by TheAssociate


Do you know what else they have in the constitution, the right to free speech and the responsibilities with it. To use that speech to advocate violence and destruction.

What happens when that freedom is used to advocate the death of that very freedom? This was foreseen. The solution was to eliminate the advocates.

reply to post by Gorman91


People can advocate whatever they want. You can't pick and choose whose or what type of speech the First Amendment protects.

There's plenty of people out there advocating various forms of totalitarianism, which is their right, but fortunately the same Constitution that protects their right to Free Speech protects us from their attempts to impose their will on us.


TheAssoc.

Edit for readability.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by TheAssociate]

reply to post by TheAssociate


Not true.

Schenck v. United States firmly takes the stance that if your speech leads to violence or is deliberatly baiting it, you will be held responsible.

reply to post by Gorman91


How do you know what is deliberate or not>?

That is where the line becomes blurry, therefore it would be better to protect freedom of speech as a whole and punish actions rather than words.

If someone tells me to jump off the bridge, I won't do it, and if I do it, it isn't the fault of the person who said jump off the bridge.

Unless we prove the existence of mind control, and use that in our laws, other than that, we shouldn't prosecute words.

reply to post by Gorman91


Yes, there are some limits to Free Speech, but now you're just grasping at straws to keep the argument going.

They have the Constitutionally protected right to build the mosque there.


TheAssoc.

reply to post by TheAssociate


The building there is no longer the issue though. We said this. We are now discussing the right of an obviously shady fellow to having rights to vulnerably people for his influences.


reply to post by oozyism


The line is not blurry. Very clearly, if somebody is saying that bombing a nations's civilians is justifiable, there is a serious issue there. And if somebody does it, they are responsible for that influence. It is no different than mind control. It is indoctrination. Now you can get indoctrinated into whatever you dare please. But if that indoctrination drives you to violent acts against the government and innocent people, the one indoctrinating must be dealt with.

You simply have the right to say whatever you want, and the consequences of saying that are yours to be punished to.







For both of you, the issue is not the building. The issue is not their right to build it. The issue is who is leading that building and what they are advocating. I would expect no less on Westbro Church members indoctrinating young children to hate. Their right to say what they want is there. The consequences of that are theirs to hold. When a westbro baptist church member bombs a recruitment center, God forbid, then the church he goes to is to be held accountable and the people who caused this to be arrested for the sake of the civilians at risk.

reply to post by Gorman91


If a direct causal link can be proven between the words of one and the actions of another, fine, (if indeed precedent has been set for this type of thing) press charges and let a jury sort it out.

Personally, If I were in that hypothetical jury, I'd throw the case out. I don't believe anyone can incite violence through words alone. That's a cop-out defense used by idiots who have no other excuse for their crimes (read: Gangsta Rap made me do it).


TheAssoc.

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

Why do you ignore the evidence that these fundamentalist Moslems have been killing people everywhere they go in the world. Why do you ignore the fact that there are teachings endorsing this kind of violence in Islam?

What more proof do you need?

Do you not see the connection?

You can not promote the teachings of killing people. It is a totally different issue than the religious freedom.

With respect, I need proof that these individuals or members of their community are planning, committing, or threatening violence and that this mosque will, for a fact, facilitate those ends. If there is proof that these people who happen to be Muslim are threatening, committing, or planning violence, then that proof should be utilized to take legal action against them. That has not happened.

In the absence of that, the Constitution guarantees their religious liberty, and in the absence of that, I respect their religious liberty. I refuse to condemn the religion of Islam in general, and by extention this particular mosque, without such proof. I choose to deal with individuals, or at least individual organizations, rather than judge groups collectively purely on the basis of their religion. I extend that position to every religion in the world, and I always will.

You are likewise free to do and speak otherwise, and I must respect your freedom to do so.

reply to post by TheAssociate


Well with all do respect, 11 million civilians died and many more soldiers died died because a few evil men got a good speaker for Germany in the 1930s. Words can kill.

And yes, you are innocent until proven guilty. But if the link is found, you are guilty for inciting violence.

You should recalculate your view of what a lot of stupid desperate people and a good speaker can do in terms of harm. Now personally I do not even fear Islam as I am certain that like so many groups coming to America before they will conform. In fact I would put money on a new religion that accepts Christ but follows some of the cultural laws of Islam springing up soon. The view of the religious head wear poor immigrant with torn or primitive clothing is universal for all immigrants in US history. And their children almost always conform, mush so is the case in that I know no religiously active young Muslims. Only atheists and agnostics who abandoned their parent's faith. These are 1st generation born-in-america children of immigrants.

But do not forget history. And just as the Irish, Italian, and Russian mafias grew up in such situations, so too could a sharia law mafia. Realize that the mob kings will always use the constitution to protect their bumpiness, but ultimately they are shown to the light as violent men and die soon later, and with it, the entity that was that immigrant group.

So while I hardly could care about the building, I am concerned about the people funding and leading it. who are very much so in a position to use their words to control and provoke their own power hunger.

reply to post by Gorman91


Firstly,

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin for "reduction to Hitler" or "argument to Hitler," respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit.
source

Secondly, it's always best to err on the side of Free Speech, regardless of the perceived risk doing so may entail. To quote Benjamin Franklin, People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

With all due respect.


TheAssoc.



[edit on 18-8-2010 by TheAssociate]

The new mosque isn't really a mosque. Its more like a multilevel YMCA center. Although it will have a mosque inside.

It is not at "ground zero" - - it is two blocks away.

People need to put terrorists/extremists into their own separate group - - which is not Muslim anymore then all Christians bomb abortion centers.

The hysteria is sickening.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


You are kidding with those 'sources' correct? You make Breitbart look like Plato given to the sources and edits of the 'facts' you are spreading.

Several of your sources are from an anti-Mosque website and the other is excerpted from an editorial from someone whose anti-Muslim views are well known.

I'm not getting into whether I approve or disapprove of the building in question going up near ground zero but I really do see quite a bit of disinformation coming out from many opposed to it.

The great thing about ATS (and the vast array of data available on the Internet) is that we can review the facts and make critical learned judgments. When making arguments one way or the other lets at least use sources that have factual basis and not merely wildly emotional conjecture.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

I didn't know. But I'm one of those who didn't think a mosque in that area was a big deal in the first place.....which is why this surprised me that this information isn't EVERYWHERE....or should i be surprised that it's not everywhere? lol

Has this been in the corporate media at all (about the mosque that is ALREADY THERE?) I don't watch any the major corporate news stations anymore so I have no idea.

[edit on 17-8-2010 by David9176]

MSM will never report that there is a mosque already there as this doesn't drive ratings.

Hate for Muslims driven by media hysteria drives ratings.

They will continue to push the hatred against Muslims in general in the USA, until they get what they want, which could be a repealing of the "Freedom of Religion" clause in the Constitution, combined with a repealing of the "Seperation of Church and State" claus, which is the ONLY way that the Government will be able to step in and stop this, unless they use some sort of "for the good of Homeland Security" way to shut it down, which is probably more likely.

They keep talking about the "wiseness of building a mosque at this location versus the Constitutional right to Freedom of Religion", but if you're going to use that argument, then I would use the same argument on the "wiseness of allowing every crackpot in America to own a gun, versus the Constituional right to do so". I bet you'd see a different reaction from the gun toting crowd, which coincidentally, looks like it happensd to be just about the same type of person opposed to this Mosque. They use the Constitution to uphold their rights, but then the minute someone uses the Constitution to do something they don't agree with, there is a problem. What a bunch of bigoted hypocrites.

Personally, I say if they want to build their Mosque, let them do so. Unfortunately, it will become the target of every right wing Christian nutbar in the United States, and will probably end up getting bombed by a New Yorker or a White Supremacist.

I live in a town of less than 100,000 and we have at least two Mosques, a Synagogue, a Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall, a Buhdist Temple, a Hindi temple, a Sikh temple, about two dozen Christian Churches, a Mormon Temple, a New Age Church, and who knows what else, and they all coexist in peace and harmony without protests and riots in the streets and without preaching hatred towards one another.. Now that's what I call religious tolerance, but I guess that's the difference between Canada and the United States. We have tolerance and understanding for the belief and lifestyle choices of others, while intolerance of anything outside of the WASP norm is building in the United States to an epidemic level.. After all, gay marriage is legal across Canada as well.

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by Gorman91

 

If a direct causal link can be proven between the words of one and the actions of another, fine, (if indeed precedent has been set for this type of thing) press charges and let a jury sort it out.

Personally, If I were in that hypothetical jury, I'd throw the case out. I don't believe anyone can incite violence through words alone. That's a cop-out defense used by idiots who have no other excuse for their crimes (read: Gangsta Rap made me do it).


TheAssoc.

I have to disagree. People have incited violence for millenia through words alone. A good public speaker can whip a crowd into a frenzy, and often that frenzy has been turned into violent acts - this has happened many times throughout history and across many civilizations.

I just wanted to share an informative video by Keith Olbermann www.youtube.com...

Edit: He talks about that there is actually a Mosque that has been there way before the world trade center closer then the community center will be.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Slardizzledar]

reply to post by David9176


Oh while I'll be! But you know what? They will hear or read no part of it. As far as they are concerned, its muslims, they are all the same, and any comparisons to christianity is an attack on christianity. They have a noise of BS surrounding them and they have no intention of stepping out and taking some common sense.

But no... no no no! these are not bigots! after all they have 'american muslin friends' or they are not 'christians' so that makes their complaints that little more legitimate and not necessarily religious... and yet... nothing else explains their opposition to this mosque.

Its no wonder we managed to elect idiots like Bush and get ourselves into $600 billion war of lies.

reply to post by babybunnies


Maybe, but I still say people have a right to say what they damn well please. One person's right to Free Speech shouldn't be infringed because of the suggestibility of another.


TheAssoc.

reply to post by Gorman91

The line is not blurry. Very clearly, if somebody is saying that bombing a nations's civilians is justifiable, there is a serious issue there. And if somebody does it, they are responsible for that influence. It is no different than mind control. It is indoctrination. Now you can get indoctrinated into whatever you dare please. But if that indoctrination drives you to violent acts against the government and innocent people, the one indoctrinating must be dealt with.

You simply have the right to say whatever you want, and the consequences of saying that are yours to be punished to.

You can probably see that I don't disagree with you, but trying to lay the other side of the argument in front of you to spark the debate.

If I say Mr. Gorman, please go strap a bomb around yourself and press the trigger in an American train station, when you do it, is it my fault?

I would agree that it is my fault, if you didn't have the ability to think for yourself. If you are a computer, and I give the instructions, and you follow because you lack the ability to think, and lack the ability to make decisions on your own. That would be BS wouldn't it?

If we didn't have the ability to think, as some act like they can't for example soldiers, only then will the accountability go towards those who give the instructions. For example drones. Drones do not have the ability to think for themselves, that is why the Drone is not really at fault, it is the driver.

In order for your claim to be true, you have to prove that Humans, or at least some Humans, do not have the ability to think.

That is a challenge for you..

Very interesting one at that.


[edit on 18-8-2010 by oozyism]