The Proposed New York Mosque

You're assuming that they care what the rest of us think.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

The Muslim people should understand we the majority of people, plus the families of 9/11 do not want you to build a Mosque near ground zero...........period.

You're talking about fellow Americans. Referring to them as "Muslim people" sounds a bit xenophobic to me. These are Muslim Americans who are simply trying to exercise their Constitutional Rights. Constitutional Rights are not subject to referendum or opinion polls.

BTW - From what I've seen, the "families of 9/11" are far from unified in opposition to the project.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

...we just want you to move your idea elsewhere

And then what? What if "the majority" decides that they don't want the Muslim Culltural Center in a new chosen location either? Should they move again?

KarenT wrote:

You're assuming that they care what the rest of us think.

If it makes you feel any better, I highly doubt that "they" will be going ahead with the construction at this point.

Personally, I'm completely disgusted by the gross over-reaction to this proposed building. It appears that hatred and bigotry has prevailed over what looked to me like a sincere attempt by peaceful Muslim Americans to reach out to other religions and cultures in our country.

I agree, Scorp.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

The Muslim people should understand we the majority of people, plus the families of 9/11 do not want you to build a Mosque near ground zero...........period. How many news articles, how many polls, how many political Republicans and Democrats know for sure, that the people of the United States to not want the Mosque built near ground zero. This is not political, it's now racist, it's not intolerance, it's the power of the people collectively saying no to building a Mosque near ground zero. There are many reason's why the majority of people don't want it there, so Muslim's hear the majority, and select a different place. That's all we as a majority ask of you. We don't want to disable you to not pray or worship, we just want you to move your idea elsewhere. See isn't that simple.

"Sorry, the majority's voted. You don't have rights anymore."

Simple indeed.

My Muslim friends didn't attack us on 9/11. They deserve the right to worship where ever they please. This proposed mosque does not harbor Islamic extremist, most do not.

By not allowing the mosque to be built will give the terrorists vindication for the attacks on 9/11. By taking the high road, and welcoming the mosque, we can show the muslim world that our country is a melting pot of race, color, religion, and ideas. Which one sounds better to you?

A truly sad and embarrassing moment for the "Land of the Free".

Biblical literacy FAIL.

BWG's so completely out of ideas of his own, he's now stealing from Moby's book of ridiculous bigotry.

Heretic wrote:

Biblical literacy FAIL.

BWG's so completely out of ideas of his own, he's now stealing from Moby's book of ridiculous bigotry.

Hmmm, I don't think so!

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Biblical literacy FAIL.

BWG's so completely out of ideas of his own, he's now stealing from Moby's book of ridiculous bigotry.

Hmmm, I don't think!

Ya don't say!

U.S. Anti-Islam Protest Seen as Lift for Extremists

Quote :

Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam.

Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda's claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say.

"I know people in this debate don't intend it, but there are consequences for these kinds of remarks," said Brian Fishman, who studies terrorism for the New America Foundation here.

He said that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric hiding in Yemen who has been linked to several terrorist plots, has been arguing for months in Web speeches and in a new Qaeda magazine that American Muslims face a dark future of ever-worsening discrimination and vilification.

"When the rhetoric is so inflammatory that it serves the interests of a jihadi recruiter like Awlaki, politicians need to be called on it," Mr. Fishman said.

Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks militant Web sites at the security consulting firm Flashpoint Global Partners, said supporters of Al Qaeda have seized on the controversy "with glee." On radical Web forums, he said, the dispute over the Islamic center, which would include space for worship, is lumped together with fringe developments like a Florida pastor's call for making Sept. 11 "Burn a Koran Day."

"It's seen as proof of what Awlaki and others have been saying, that the U.S. is hypocritical and that most Americans are enemies of Islam," Mr. Kohlmann said. He called the anti-Islam statements spawned by the dispute "disturbing and sad" and said they were feeding anti-American sentiment that could provoke violence...

Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies said the outcry over the proposed center "plays into Awlaki's arguments and Osama bin Laden's arguments" by suggesting that Islam has no place in the United States.

She said that extreme anti-Muslim views in the United States ironically mirror a central tenet of extreme Islamists: "That the world is divided into two camps, and they're irreconcilable, and Muslims have to choose which side they're on."

I got nuthin'. I'm just too disgusted at the moment by this phony debate.

Heretic wrote:

I got nuthin'. I'm just too disgusted at the moment by this phony debate.

Why would this even bother you. You've been itchin' to debate anti-creationism, and I would assume any and all religion. Or do you just itch for a fight?

The GOP and the “Ground Zero” Mosque

Quote :

A number of public officials and commentators, not all of them Obama supporters, have staked out a position that walks this country back from that precipice. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s courageous and eloquent statementon this issue should be read by all, not just Republicans. But Bloomberg is unlikely to swing opinion within the GOP base. So too with Fareed Zakaria, who nonetheless deserves enormous credit for distancing himself from any organization that would adopt a public position of thinly veiled bigotry, especially one whose mission is “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” Dan Drezner’s take is aimed squarely at right-of-center readers, and sprinkled with a tone of sarcasm; but he is a pointy-headed intellectual, so he’ll have a hard time convincing the most skeptical of the lot.

A more convincing spokesman for sensible voices on the Right is former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, who wisely opposes a short-sighted and cynical political strategy to exploit anti-Muslim sentiments. Likewise, Mark Halperin recognizes the political salience of an anti-mosque stance, but advises party leaders to steer clearof that position. Josh Barro at National Review Online renders a devastating refutation of all the dubious arguments erected to block the mosque.

Indeed, George W. Bush himself set the tone in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 atrocities, counseling against retaliation against innocent Muslims who had nothing to do with the attacks, and noting that a number of Muslims were killed on 9/11. Other conservative organizations and institutions took notice of Bush’s leadership, and wisely sacked the few voices who preached violence against all Muslims because nineteen of their coreligionists had perpetrated the attacks.

Not quite nine years later, we’ve come full-circle. With Bush enjoying retirement in Texas, who within the GOP will affirm the party’s position that declaring a war on Islam does not advance our nation’s security?

Here's a welcome breath of sanity....
Ron Paul Breaks With Son, Rand Paul On Islamic Cultural Center Opposition

Quote :

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) issued a harsh reprimand of detractors of the
Park51 project last week, calling the outspoken and commonplace
opposition of the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero "all
about hate and Islamaphobia."

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Why would this even bother you. You've been itchin' to debate anti-creationism, and I would assume any and all religion.

What? The opposition to the Ground Zero mosque? Well, it's simple. I love debating religion; we all know that. I can do it all day long. But what I love more is my right to do so. That's the issue here. You just have to love the hypocrisy; those that are rallying to the defense of Dr. Laura's first amendment rights are the very first in line to take the very same away from American Muslims (read: American citizens who had nothing to do with 9/11 or families of victims of 9/11). And if that's not seriously retarded enough, they're doing so at the expense of our national security.

All for cheap, political points.

How can you not be enraged by such monumental stupidity? More importantly, as a member of that political ideology and/or party affiliation, how can you condone it?

Heretic wrote:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Why would this even bother you. You've been itchin' to debate anti-creationism, and I would assume any and all religion.

What? The opposition to the Ground Zero mosque? Well, it's simple. I love debating religion; we all know that. I can do it all day long. But what I love more is my right to do so. That's the issue here. You just have to love the hypocrisy; those that are rallying to the defense of Dr. Laura's first amendment rights are the very first in line to take the very same away from American Muslims (read: American citizens who had nothing to do with 9/11 or families of victims of 9/11). And if that's not seriously retarded enough, they're doing so at the expense of our national security.

All for cheap, political points.

How can you not be enraged by such monumental stupidity? More importantly, as a member of that political ideology and/or party affiliation, how can you condone it?

I don't condone anything! I just think the whole thing is in bad taste. And the fact that the Park51 people have very little money only suggests that major sponsorship will come from cultures that are, say, not so peace loving. And, I am NOT a member of ANY party affiliation. I have a mind of my own, thank you.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I don't condone anything!

Obviously you do condone the use of the hilariously unconstitutional "can't build here; sorry, the majority's voted" and the unfounded "Islam = terrorism" arguments as justification for the opposition, all at the expense of our national security, since it was you who actually used them.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

And the fact that the Park51 people have very little money only suggests that major sponsorship will come from cultures that are, say, not so peace loving.

No more than Fox News. which you seem perfectly comfortable with.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I just think the whole thing is in bad taste.

And I would agree... if American Muslims brought down the towers. American Muslims != 9/11 terrorists. There is no correlation. Building Catholic churches in cities where victims of clergy abuse live is in poorer taste than a Ground Zero mosque. And banning them might actually save children, too, considering how complicit the Church is in hiding offenders.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

And, I am NOT a member of ANY party affiliation. I have a mind of my own, thank you.

That would be believable if all of your arguments didn't run lockstep with Fox News or conservative blogs, especially considering how many of your mindlessly regurgitated arguments fail a simple logic or Snopes test.

Heretic wrote:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I don't condone anything!

Obviously you do condone the use of the hilariously unconstitutional "can't build here; sorry, the majority's voted" and the unfounded "Islam = terrorism" arguments as justification for the opposition, all at the expense of our national security, since it was you who actually used them.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

And the fact that the Park51 people have very little money only suggests that major sponsorship will come from cultures that are, say, not so peace loving.

No more than Fox News. which you seem perfectly comfortable with.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I just think the whole thing is in bad taste.

And I would agree... if American Muslims brought down the towers. American Muslims != 9/11 terrorists. There is no correlation. Building Catholic churches in cities where victims of clergy abuse live is in poorer taste than a Ground Zero mosque. And banning them might actually save children, too, considering how complicit the Church is in hiding offenders.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

And, I am NOT a member of ANY party affiliation. I have a mind of my own, thank you.

That would be believable if all of your arguments didn't run lockstep with Fox News or conservative blogs, especially considering how many of your mindlessly regurgitated arguments fail a simple logic or Snopes test.

See, I was right. You just want to f u c k i n' argue. A lot of sad people on this board.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Heretic wrote:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I don't condone anything!

Obviously you do condone the use of the hilariously unconstitutional "can't build here; sorry, the majority's voted" and the unfounded "Islam = terrorism" arguments as justification for the opposition, all at the expense of our national security, since it was you who actually used them.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

And the fact that the Park51 people have very little money only suggests that major sponsorship will come from cultures that are, say, not so peace loving.

No more than Fox News. which you seem perfectly comfortable with.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

I just think the whole thing is in bad taste.

And I would agree... if American Muslims brought down the towers. American Muslims != 9/11 terrorists. There is no correlation. Building Catholic churches in cities where victims of clergy abuse live is in poorer taste than a Ground Zero mosque. And banning them might actually save children, too, considering how complicit the Church is in hiding offenders.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

And, I am NOT a member of ANY party affiliation. I have a mind of my own, thank you.

That would be believable if all of your arguments didn't run lockstep with Fox News or conservative blogs, especially considering how many of your mindlessly regurgitated arguments fail a simple logic or Snopes test.

See, I was right. You just want to f u c k i n' argue. A lot of sad people on this board.

This is a frickin' discussion forum. "Argument" is part of debate. If someone disagrees with you, there really is no need to take it so personally. I see nothing in Heretic's post that is an unfair characterization of your views. If you feel that he posted something that is inaccurate, then feel free to point that out.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

See, I was right. You just want to f u c k i n' argue.

And you continually run from any discussion of your ideas.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

A lot of sad people on this board.

Cowards, too, apparently.

Yeah, well I'd be surprised if we hear from BWG any time soon. I don't really think that he is interested in debate. It's a lot easier to post propaganda and bumper sticker slogans than it is to actually defend one's views.

I will say this, in his defense. At least he hasn't totally run away like Mirage (aka Passion), Happy Jack and a few others. I guess they just didn't like it when someone challenged their opinions, but that seems really bizarre to me, since that is one of the major purposes of a Forum like this, isn't it?

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well I'd be surprised if we hear from BWG any time soon. I don't really think that he is interested in debate. It's a lot easier to post propaganda and bumper sticker slogans than it is to actually defend one's views.

I will say this, in his defense. At least he hasn't totally run away like Mirage (aka Passion), Happy Jack and a few others. I guess they just didn't like it when someone challenged their opinions, but that seems really bizarre to me, since that is one of the major purposes of a Forum like this, isn't it?

I'll say this about Mirage...Even though he's posted some pretty nutty theories,I believe he's at least sincere in his beliefs and isn't attempting to troll. As for running away,he comes and goes all time. I wouldn't really read anything into it.

I can't say the same for the others. The problem with them is they can never,ever,just admit they were wrong about something and move on.