Attention: There Is Already a Mosque Near the WTC Site

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


The people aren't going to do anything, except maybe whine one way or another. No one in a position of power in this country gives a crap about the voice of the people. Whatever the most profitable thing is for the most people in positions of power is what will happen. And Americans aren't going to do anything about that. By next year, virtually no one will even remember that any of this happened.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by Gorman91

 

...But....But...he outright condemned the 9/11 attacks. He did it on the same where he said the US's foreign policy was a factor in causing the attacks.

I mistook the above quote for sarcasm... Many of the religious bigots here would say that his statement that US Foreign Policy was a factor in 9/11 would mean that he supports the attacks and is a radical Muslim.

Originally posted by misinformational

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by Gorman91

 

...But....But...he outright condemned the 9/11 attacks. He did it on the same where he said the US's foreign policy was a factor in causing the attacks.

I mistook the above quote for sarcasm... Many of the religious bigots here would say that his statement that US Foreign Policy was a factor in 9/11 would mean that he supports the attacks and is a radical Muslim.

But I'm not an idiot.

Originally posted by bikeshedding
reply to post by AmericanDaughter

 

The people aren't going to do anything, except maybe whine one way or another. No one in a position of power in this country gives a crap about the voice of the people. Whatever the most profitable thing is for the most people in positions of power is what will happen. And Americans aren't going to do anything about that. By next year, virtually no one will even remember that any of this happened.

So we shouldn't standup for what we believe in? It's exactly that attitude that prevents worthwhile reform in this country.

We put those people in power into their positions of power. And its through mediums like this that we increase awareness and incite reform.

The position of indifference is the worst position of them all.

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by misinformational

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by Gorman91

 

...But....But...he outright condemned the 9/11 attacks. He did it on the same where he said the US's foreign policy was a factor in causing the attacks.

I mistook the above quote for sarcasm... Many of the religious bigots here would say that his statement that US Foreign Policy was a factor in 9/11 would mean that he supports the attacks and is a radical Muslim.

But I'm not an idiot.

I used to have faith that most weren't - That's since changed.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by SpectreDC


And? This changes nothing. He did not condemn the violence from Hamas and IDF. He claims to be a man of peace. If you are a man of peace and asked if you support genocidal people or even have an opinion of it and say nothing, you have failed to continue that belief of peace.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by mothershipzeta

 

The wrongs of one do not right the other. Again, please do not pull a strawman. Unless someone was asked then it does not matter. He was asked if he supports or has an opinion on the issue. It is incredibly easy to say violence is wrong. He did not. That, in and of itself, is sufficient to denounce him as not a man of peace and taking advantage of people.

I could hardly care what Christian groups say or do. They are wrong to support violence. period. Their choice does not affect me being a Christian in any way. Just as much as a peaceful Imam who renounces violence would fix the entire issue here.

So please, again, no strawmans in the argument. Simple logic only.

Apparently you do not understand what a strawman is.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I did not ascribe the position of banning Christian churches to anyone. I was merely pointing out that the same argument could be made about Christians who use the Bible as an excuse for violent acts, because no one gets Pat Robertson on TV and asks him to repudiate some abortion clinic bomber. However, if you're a Muslim you MUST condemn any action that is made in the name of Islam, no matter how misguided.

You're holding a Muslim cleric to a higher standard than a Christian leader, and that is hypocrisy in the extreme.

Please look up your logical fallacies before you start throwing them around.

Ain't there a mosque near everything?

Just a thought or a slightly vage observation.

reply to post by Gorman91


He has condemned all violence done in the name of any religion, actually.

BTW, I noticed that you wrote a reply to me on page 8. I haven't decided whether or not to reply, since it's pretty well buried, but I also don't want you to think I'm just ignoring it. If you would like a reply please let me know here or by u2u?



edit to add link to post I'm talking about

[edit on 8/18/2010 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter

mosk on sacred groung isn't gonna happen

the people have spoken

and we have a loud voice

Meanwhile, porn shops, strip clubs and bars are okay. Nothing spiritual allowed, despite the First Amendment. Good job, AmericanDaughter, for spitting on the Constitution.

You have a loud voice, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

And? This changes nothing. He did not condemn the violence from Hamas and IDF. He claims to be a man of peace. If you are a man of peace and asked if you support genocidal people or even have an opinion of it and say nothing, you have failed to continue that belief of peace.

In fact, Rauf has repeatedly condemned terrorism and "Muslim militants"

Rauf: "We condemn terrorists. We recognize it exists in our faith, but we are committed to eradicate it." A May 21 New York Daily News article quoted Rauf stating: "We condemn terrorists. We recognize it exists in our faith, but we are committed to eradicate it." He also stated: "We want to rebuild this community. ... This is about moderate Muslims who intend to be and want to be part of the solution."

Slate: Rauf has "denounced church burnings in Muslim countries ... proposed to reclaim Islam from violent radicals." An August 2 Slate.com article reported that Rauf "has denounced church burnings in Muslim countries, rejected Islamic triumphalism over Christians and Jews, and proposed to reclaim Islam from violent radicals such as Osama Bin Laden."

NYT: Rauf "condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion." A June 23, 2004, New York Times article reported that Rauf "condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion."

After 9-11, Rauf "categorically condemned suicide bombers." A June 8, 2004, Newsday article (accessed via Nexis) reported: "Rauf has done little else since the terrorist attacks that pulled him from his mahogany pulpit in the shadow of Ground Zero. At the outset, he categorically condemned suicide bombers and, in fact, any violence committed in the name of religion."

But I guess if he doesn't specifically repudiate each and every action, he's "one of them."

Stop bearing false witness against this man.

And for all the people piling on this statement:

At the outset, he categorically condemned suicide bombers and, in fact, any violence committed in the name of religion.

[Rauf] also said that American policies "were an accessory to the crime that happened" since they had armed a generation of jihadists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

"Explaining is not justifying," he said. "I want people to understand the things that have fueled terrorism, because if we address them, that's how we eliminate terror."

Then I would like to know what we should do to Glenn Beck:

"I wasn’t paying attention before 9/11. I didn’t know what the heck was going on in the world. Now I’m paying attention. When people said they hate us. Did we deserve 9/11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoning our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems!

So, if Rauf doesn't get his Islamic center, then surely Glenn Beck should be kicked off the airwaves for his anti-American comments, right? You can't have it both ways!

Here are a bunch of sources: Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

reply to post by mothershipzeta
that was a good show.

[edit on 8/18/2010 by ~Lucidity]

In Britain, plans to build Europe's biggest mosque in London were scrapped in January 2010, after some 250,000 people petitioned the government to prevent the project

In Britain, plans to build Europe's biggest mosque in London were scrapped in January 2010, after some 250,000 people petitioned the government to prevent the project from moving forward. The so-called mega-mosque, which was being promoted by Tablighi Jamaat, a secretive Islamic sect that has been tied to Al Qaeda, would have held four times as many worshippers as Britain's largest Anglican cathedral. It was intended to be operational in time for the 2012 London Olympics. Critics of the mosque, including a number of other Muslim groups, said it would have given Tablighi Jamaat "a huge national platform, right by the Olympics, for them to promote their ideology." Overall, there are an estimated 1,600 mosques in Britain, almost half of which are under the control of the hardline Islamic Deobandi sect, whose leading preacher, Riyadh ul Haq, supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus.

Critics of the mosque, including a number of other Muslim groups, said it would have given Tablighi Jamaat "a huge national platform,

In Switzerland, voters in 2009 overwhelmingly approved a referendum to ban the construction of minarets.

www.hudson-ny.org...

Anyway it is a long article with many countries listed.

[edit on 033131p://bWednesday2010 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


So you're saying we should forsake our Constitution because other countries don't protect their citizens natural right to freedom of religion?

*Grasping at straws eh?

reply to post by SpectreDC


at least it's English.

I sure hope this goes through. Pulling out will only make the ignorant think they are right.

Once its built and the Fear Mongers are on to their next target. No one is going to care that its there.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


So because I am not in the position to trial and charge those Christian leaders you assume I have a double standard?

Wrong.

And yes it is a strawman. You said something, I argued against it, then you brought in an unrelated case to say something unrelated to the right or wrong of the original. Pure concentrated strawman.

As I've said many times. Say what you want. But if you say it to incite violence, you are getting charged for it. I could hardly give a damn what religion.

And for the record, I would buy you the rope to hang Pat Ropertson.


reply to post by americandingbat


He chose to make no opinion on Hamas. That's simply fishy. A man of peace and especially a Muslim cleric, has much more responsibility to his congregation than a priest. He is expected to be leader, advisor, councilor, and many other positions. I've yet to hear of his funding and his refusal to comment on the evils of either the IDF or Hamas is disturbing to say the least. Like I said earlier. If it was a westbro baptist church member I would want him just as far away from desperate and needy people as possible.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


What does he define as terrorist. He still did not comment when he should have on Hamas.

Define your terms before you use the, What is his description of terrorist if he said nothing about the problems there.

The fact is he said he did not want to politicize it nor get involved. If you knew anything about Islam, you would know that to be an Imam IS to be a leader in those fields for your community.

I'm still waiting for someone to post proof that this particular center and these particular Muslims are (or will be) planning, condoning, or committing acts of violence, or supporting the spread of any radical ideology or movement.

People keep posting examples of how this has happened elsewhere, at other times, in other locations. (And I'm certainly not denying that it has.)Yet in my view the issue is whether this particular Imam and his particular community supports, endorses, condones, or plans violence. Since no one has posted proof to that effect, and since in fact he has publicly condemned terrorism, and all violence in the name of religion, I have to wonder if such proof even exists at all.

And with all due respect to everyone's personal opinions, if it doesn't exist, then I have to wonder what the basis (other than "we've seen it before, so surely it will happen in this case") for people's opposition to the existence of this center is in the first place.

reply to post by AceWombat04


I find that fascinating as well...the post hoc rationalization.

Each country is unique in it's laws and the way it handles things.

It may be that some countries have had an influx of people of this faith that has clearly cause some issues they are still working through. In this case these are Americans. And it's the US, where we have some pretty good experience with the melting pot even if there were new influxes of legal immigrants.

We know that isolation, ostracization, and economic problems all cause radicalization, and not only of the religious, and that may be what some of these other countries are facing. And we also know that one of the ways to battle that is to integrate with the community.

I've been meaning to look into how things are going in France. We don't seem to hear from too many French people (unless they're just not saying?), but didn't they have some pretty severe issues there a few years back with unemployment and housing and riots that the government stepped in to handle? I believe by ensuring that they were not segregated and singled out.