Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:If a significant number of the residents near the OKC bombing got together and complained how hurtful a church there was, then the church should not be built there. Has this happened? Was the OKC bombing done in the name of Jesus? No and no. your argument is just irrelevant.

misterearl wrote:Burlington Coat Factory

What about the existing strip club in the same block of "hallowed ground" as Park51?

Tim McVeigh was a Christian as evidenced by the fact that he asked for and received Catholic last rights prior to his execution.

Given this, I think all Christian Churches and right wing organizations, e.g., the local Republican Party Headquarters, should be kept a respectful distance from the Oklahoma City bombing. Our second worst terrorist attack.

Once this is done, we can talk about moving the Mosque.

and if so, so is the argument that the terrorists did their terrorism in the name of religion. they did it in the name of terrorism, nothing more. and that is the real point.

Ok, martin, you can make this argument if you wish. But what you're claiming simply isn't true. They did not perform their actions saying that, "we're doing it to be terrorists". They proclaimed a holy war and did it in the name of Allah. This is factual information. Are they extremists? Yes. But they did it for a proclaimed holy war. They are certainly not indicative of the majority of muslims, but let's not lose sight of the facts.

great. it's a fact. a pointless one that adds nothing.

Well, I could not disagree more. You may find the point irrelevant, but I think you are being entirely unrealistic.

these people brought death and destruction like no other. Their death cries while aiming planes at buildings have meaning and/or should bring weight?

Please, convince me of this.

When people are against this mosque, they are condemning an entire religion. It is fundamentally un-American. The 19 Saudi Arabians who did this in the name of Islam were anti-American. I do agree people have the right to hate the Mosque being built there, feel it is an insult to the memories of those who died, and have it moved. BUT what they are hating then is America and everything it stands for. And that is freedom. You may not see that because your argument is based on emotion, and not rationale.

If I were the Mosque builders, I would move it. Because in the end you cannot beat hate. When the 9-11 Terrorists were flying their planes into the twin towers, they did not think they could beat America right there. But what they could do was make Americans hate Islam. And the more America hates Islam, the more fundamentalists are created and the more the douches in Al Queda can use to recruit members. And now they have ammunition again. So no one says you don't have the right to hate their religion, or hate their idea of where they should build their mosque, or think it's in bad taste. But also know that you are playing right into the hands of those you hate the most. Be careful to stare at monsters for too long, lest ye become a monster yourself.

nykshaknbake wrote:you guys are insane. Why can't you talk about this isue without referencing Bush, foxnews, right wing fundamentalism and other huffington post buzzwords? Try thinking for yourselves. It's like you mention one topic and you bring in Illegal immigration, blacks and elections season and the GOP. Can't you argue on the merits of a concept rather than who's for it and what a dufus they are?

I don't understand why people can't get over the right to build and whether you think its right. This is america and you can have an opinion that its not right. You can have an opinion if its right. That makes us better than IRan, Saudi Arabia and the others. get it? I protect the right for them to build it but I don't agree it shold be built. If they really want to build it nothing will stop them. But why does everyone have to like it? I agree you should protect the ideas you hate, but I don't see you doing that at all in your post. Quite the opposite.

Your last paragrapgh is not at all pertinent to the discussion. Over 60% of the country doesn't like the mosque and it has nothing to with the Tea Party, Dick Armey, crucifications or whatever other names you read about today. Your bost reminds me of that Bing commercial.

martin wrote:

Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:If a significant number of the residents near the OKC bombing got together and complained how hurtful a church there was, then the church should not be built there. Has this happened? Was the OKC bombing done in the name of Jesus? No and no. your argument is just irrelevant.

misterearl wrote:Burlington Coat Factory

What about the existing strip club in the same block of "hallowed ground" as Park51?

Tim McVeigh was a Christian as evidenced by the fact that he asked for and received Catholic last rights prior to his execution.

Given this, I think all Christian Churches and right wing organizations, e.g., the local Republican Party Headquarters, should be kept a respectful distance from the Oklahoma City bombing. Our second worst terrorist attack.

Once this is done, we can talk about moving the Mosque.

and if so, so is the argument that the terrorists did their terrorism in the name of religion. they did it in the name of terrorism, nothing more. and that is the real point.

Ok, martin, you can make this argument if you wish. But what you're claiming simply isn't true. They did not perform their actions saying that, "we're doing it to be terrorists". They proclaimed a holy war and did it in the name of Allah. This is factual information. Are they extremists? Yes. But they did it for a proclaimed holy war. They are certainly not indicative of the majority of muslims, but let's not lose sight of the facts.

great. it's a fact. a pointless one that adds nothing.

Well, I could not disagree more. You may find the point irrelevant, but I think you are being entirely unrealistic.

these people brought death and destruction like no other. Their death cries while aiming planes at buildings have meaning and/or should bring weight?

Please, convince me of this.

You cannot understand why some people may view this as rubbing salt in the wound? They killed people in the name of their cause and religion. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why this is a sore spot for some people. I don't really need to convince you or wish to try. I think you can simply put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and understand a point of view without necessarily feeling that strongly about it yourself. If you want to plead ignorance as to why it is a sensitive topic, then there is nothing I can do to convince you.

When you start off saying that they did it in the name of terrorism and not their religion, what would you like me to say? I can't enter your fantasy land, no offense.

Also, once again, before someone misreads my intentions and jumps on me, I am saying this as someone who is personally neutral to the issue. I can see both sides and both have valid points.

the "wound" for some there is also "deep," and while this should be acknowledged as a more than reasonable response when one feels hurt, or attacked, i am also concerned this can lead to lack of growth in a more positive direction for humanity. when we feel victimized it is more than understandable to see how some will feel anger towards those who seem to be the perpetrators of our pain. however, this can also lead to closed minded views that involve strong judgment of others who may very well be allies in a fight for a better society for all, and in a fight to alleviate your own group's oppression or victimization. i guess i will go out on a limb and say i suspect that most against the project are not traditionally supportive of seeing some other groups use of "victimization" as an "excuse" for behavior. (aka, i was wronged and led me to lash out on someone else) so, say when a person is "wronged" by someone does that justify revenge? revenge can take different forms, and perhaps, is this not another one? isn't that exactly what was a motivation for those willing to do such acts?

i find it hypocrisy of the highest level that some (not anyone here) who talk about iran and islamic nations as closed societies, when the reason for the attacks (assuming you believe the story) is related to a history of actions that have less to do with religion, exclusively. i believe such actions are more about humans who are traumatized and are looking for "justice" by finding appropriate victims, justified or not, and how some of us hold onto the loss that started this feeling -- forever -- and others learn to move on, acknowledge its importance, yet still grow beyond these feelings. in fact, such feelings are unhealthy, and what has led to the worst human actions in our history.

i respect the pov of those against its construction, and i do think no matter what it will be a sore point for some, but this goes against the unequivocal right to freedom of speech and religion, opponents of which i oppose far more than anything else in the discussion. there are a lot of churches down there too, if someone wanted to build one there i wouldn't have a problem with it, even if it was a far-right wing christian one. in fact, those folks are all over the place in nyc trying to actively convert us heathens, but i don't hear complaints about that.

btw, i saw 9/11 in person on the street, and grew up with the wtc out my window growing up...

martin wrote:

Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:If a significant number of the residents near the OKC bombing got together and complained how hurtful a church there was, then the church should not be built there. Has this happened? Was the OKC bombing done in the name of Jesus? No and no. your argument is just irrelevant.

misterearl wrote:Burlington Coat Factory

What about the existing strip club in the same block of "hallowed ground" as Park51?

Tim McVeigh was a Christian as evidenced by the fact that he asked for and received Catholic last rights prior to his execution.

Given this, I think all Christian Churches and right wing organizations, e.g., the local Republican Party Headquarters, should be kept a respectful distance from the Oklahoma City bombing. Our second worst terrorist attack.

Once this is done, we can talk about moving the Mosque.

and if so, so is the argument that the terrorists did their terrorism in the name of religion. they did it in the name of terrorism, nothing more. and that is the real point.

Ok, martin, you can make this argument if you wish. But what you're claiming simply isn't true. They did not perform their actions saying that, "we're doing it to be terrorists". They proclaimed a holy war and did it in the name of Allah. This is factual information. Are they extremists? Yes. But they did it for a proclaimed holy war. They are certainly not indicative of the majority of muslims, but let's not lose sight of the facts.

great. it's a fact. a pointless one that adds nothing.

Well, I could not disagree more. You may find the point irrelevant, but I think you are being entirely unrealistic.

these people brought death and destruction like no other. Their death cries while aiming planes at buildings have meaning and/or should bring weight?

Please, convince me of this.

You cannot understand why some people may view this as rubbing salt in the wound? They killed people in the name of their cause and religion. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why this is a sore spot for some people. I don't really need to convince you or wish to try. I think you can simply put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and understand a point of view without necessarily feeling that strongly about it yourself. If you want to plead ignorance as to why it is a sensitive topic, then there is nothing I can do to convince you.

When you start off saying that they did it in the name of terrorism and not their religion, what would you like me to say? I can't enter your fantasy land, no offense.

Also, once again, before someone misreads my intentions and jumps on me, I am saying this as someone who is personally neutral to the issue. I can see both sides and both have valid points.

you didn't really answer my question.

And i'll put this hypothetical to you: If terrorists flew a plan into a building and said they did it cause they worshiped a god that hated pizza and pizza joints, how would you react to people saying that there shouldn't be any pizza places built near Ground Zero?

Would your first instinct be to talk about salt and wounds or would you be thinking that the terrorists were thoughtless, inhumane, worthless pieces of crap whose words and thoughts and phrases should be instinctively and promptly disregarded based on what we'll call common sense?

Stupid people do and say stupid stuff, don't mean we should pay attention or draw any conclusions from it, or worse, associate it with others based on nothing.

It's hard to answer a question when I feel like what you're asking is simple common sense. I also think your pizza analogy is intentionally ridiculous, which is why I didn't answer it the first time. To answer your silly question, I think if pizza was the topic of worship or anti-worship, then the same applies. That being said, when people are murdered in the name of pizza, let me know.

Martin, I think you're a smart guy who is generally pretty logical, which is why I don't see how you're making these sorts of arguments. Stupid people do things for stupid reasons all the time, okay. But, I don't think it's reasonable to reduce this to being something this simple. Considering that suicide bombings happen constantly, you cannot treat this like an isolated incident where religion is just an incidental reason for a crazy person. Religion is the driving cause. This is why it's relevant.

you guys are insane.

Q. nyshakeandbake - Why can't you talk about this isue without referencing Bush, foxnews, right wing fundamentalism and other huffington post buzzwords?

A. Because until the Fox News / Republican hordes got a hold of it, it was a non-story.

"When the New York Times published a story last December about plans for a Muslim prayer space near the World Trade Center site, there was little reaction.

After all, the imam in charge was quoted as saying the building was an effort to "push back against the extremists" in the shadow of the terrorist attacks. Only months later did a conservative assault on the project morph into the most incendiary issue on the media landscape.

The herd was stampeding again.

You hear their thundering hooves on cable shows and talk radio, watch the gathering dust on the blogs. They trample everything in their path. Passivity is impossible: Everyone must form an immediate opinion on the matter at hand and defend it passionately.

The quickly labeled Ground Zero mosque -- an Islamic cultural center neither at Ground Zero nor specifically a mosque -- is a classic case. It is a symbolic slugfest that lacks the maddening complexity of health-care legislation or banking reform -- "Don't you care about religious freedom?" "Don't you care about the families of 9/11 victims?" -- and is tailor-made for the sound-bite stampede."

- By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer

Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

Solace wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:If a significant number of the residents near the OKC bombing got together and complained how hurtful a church there was, then the church should not be built there. Has this happened? Was the OKC bombing done in the name of Jesus? No and no. your argument is just irrelevant.

misterearl wrote:Burlington Coat Factory

What about the existing strip club in the same block of "hallowed ground" as Park51?

Tim McVeigh was a Christian as evidenced by the fact that he asked for and received Catholic last rights prior to his execution.

Given this, I think all Christian Churches and right wing organizations, e.g., the local Republican Party Headquarters, should be kept a respectful distance from the Oklahoma City bombing. Our second worst terrorist attack.

Once this is done, we can talk about moving the Mosque.

and if so, so is the argument that the terrorists did their terrorism in the name of religion. they did it in the name of terrorism, nothing more. and that is the real point.

Ok, martin, you can make this argument if you wish. But what you're claiming simply isn't true. They did not perform their actions saying that, "we're doing it to be terrorists". They proclaimed a holy war and did it in the name of Allah. This is factual information. Are they extremists? Yes. But they did it for a proclaimed holy war. They are certainly not indicative of the majority of muslims, but let's not lose sight of the facts.

great. it's a fact. a pointless one that adds nothing.

Well, I could not disagree more. You may find the point irrelevant, but I think you are being entirely unrealistic.

these people brought death and destruction like no other. Their death cries while aiming planes at buildings have meaning and/or should bring weight?

Please, convince me of this.

You cannot understand why some people may view this as rubbing salt in the wound? They killed people in the name of their cause and religion. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why this is a sore spot for some people. I don't really need to convince you or wish to try. I think you can simply put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and understand a point of view without necessarily feeling that strongly about it yourself. If you want to plead ignorance as to why it is a sensitive topic, then there is nothing I can do to convince you.

When you start off saying that they did it in the name of terrorism and not their religion, what would you like me to say? I can't enter your fantasy land, no offense.

Also, once again, before someone misreads my intentions and jumps on me, I am saying this as someone who is personally neutral to the issue. I can see both sides and both have valid points.

SFX: screams and shreiks "RUN FOR THE HILLS!"

"The quickly labeled Ground Zero mosque - an Islamic cultural center neither at Ground Zero nor specifically a mosque - is a classic case. It is a symbolic slugfest that lacks the maddening complexity of health-care legislation or banking reform - "Don't you care about religious freedom?" "Don't you care about the families of 9/11 victims?" - and is tailor-made for the sound-bite stampede."

- Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer

BREAKING NEWS

Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino describes Park51 protests as "the fight for ground zero" on Fox News

Really?

I'll accept "The Fight for the shuttered building that once was occupied by the Burlington Coat Factory to be forever Muslim-free".

misterearl wrote:"Even though the American White supremacy movement was founded in Christian fundamentalism, and even though George W. Bush claimed to have "visions" from his Christian God to go to Iraq and kill over 100,000 INNOCENT Iraqis, even though Timothy McVeigh was born into the Christian faith, we would never think for a millisecond that Jesus Christ or any verses of the bible were the cause of these horrendous, stupid acts of men. Therefore it is un-American and against everything that we believe in as a country to associate the 1.6 billion Muslims or 23% of the world's population with the acts of a few, very evil men. I pray that all of the Muslims who might hate Christians because of George Bush's actions, or the blacks or Jews or non-Whites who might hate Christians because of the historical genocide of their people, or the Christians who might hate Muslims for the acts of Osama bin Laden and his culprits, I hope they know that the overriding theme of Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Abraham and Lord Buddha was to love all people of all races and all religions.

I conclude with this story. Recently the organization of which I am the Chairman of, The Foundation For Ethnic Understanding, held a twinning program where we had European Imams and Rabbis visit the United States and hold meetings at the White House, New York City Hall and the United Nations. At the UN in my speech, I mentioned a passage from the Bhagavad Gita, when Krishna tells Arjuna whether he knows him by the name Krishna or not, it is unimportant, as all he needs to do is follow certain principles and he will come to him. When I got off the stage the Imam from Geneva gave me his prayer beads, told me that he loved the verse from the yogic scripture and reminded me that the same sentiment about God loving all people, from all faiths, exists in the Quran.

Now that we have politicized Park 51 and the world is watching, there can be no wavering of our support of the first amendment and in turn, the proposed community center. Build it."

- Russell Simmons

The religion is not the think to blame. The knowledge of Devine or nature is neutral.
The ones who turn this knowledge into good or evil are people who use it.
Muslim people of the world will be ALL hold accountable for the crimes committed in the name of Islam until they will stand up and get read themselves and the World from their criminal fundamentalist leaders.
So far they are supporting them in all their crimes and genocides in Darfur, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Chechnya, Palestine, Somalia, US, and all over the World.
Not allowing them to build this Mose is another message to ALL Muslims to wake up to the reality of the New World without violence and fear and stop their drive back to the Dark ages.

What explains the opposition to these other mosques? Is Tennessee too close to Ground Zero too?