On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
Don't matter if the reason behind the opposition right or wrong, a majority of people don't want a mosque there. They absolutely have a right to build it there, but from a pr perspective it's a terrible decision.
I'm not so sure. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" may not be universally true, but I honestly believe that this sort of friction is inevitable in a country as diverse as the US, and may prove to be a giant plus in the long term. I'd imagine that most of the people who are opposed to it now, will grow to accept it. The others are a lost cause anyway.
I'm for banning this mosque on the soul condition that we also ban all mosques, churches, and synagogues from the whole country. People who hold the view that this one mosque should not be constructed, while also holding the view that it would be okay to be constructed elsewhere are hypocrites in my opinion.
However, as my idea of banning all places of worship will never come to fruition in America, I see no reason why this mosque should not be built. The constitution clearly protects the American people's freedom of religion, and I respect and admire that clause, and every other American should as well.
Edit: I also remember reading that there was already a mosque in this area, which was damaged during the attacks (why do I find humor in that?). Furthermore, I remember reading that this mosque suffered from overcrowding, which to me is bewildering. However, I think they have a right to a bigger place if they need it and can fund it.
America is a place of religious freedom - its right there in the Constitution in plain ol' American black and white - which leaves this debate up to the circumstance. Personally, I think its construction should be "tolerated". It has every right to be there, and its a great symbol of why Americans are the good guys and the Terrorists are the bad guys. What happened on 9/11, despite being religiously motivated, does not make all Muslims bad people (transitive property FTL). I think that it is a bold statement and in good taste (more than most can foresee) to provide a place of worship for Muslims near 9/11 so that they can pray for the ones lost in the tragedy and ask for forgiveness for those who have tarnished the Muslim faith - and plenty of good Muslims will, like any good Christian or any good [insert faith here].
I wonder if the construction of the first McDonald's in downtown Nagasaki had any awkward moments.
The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
Don't matter if the reason behind the opposition right or wrong, a majority of people don't want a mosque there. They absolutely have a right to build it there, but from a pr perspective it's a terrible decision.
I'm not so sure. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" may not be universally true, but I honestly believe that this sort of friction is inevitable in a country as diverse as the US, and may prove to be a giant plus in the long term. I'd imagine that most of the people who are opposed to it now, will grow to accept it. The others are a lost cause anyway.
Have you ever talked to a hardcore right winger from the states?
Seriously, I doubt that would ever be accepted by a number of people. Hell, I know a number of independents and left wingers who I consider intelligent people that are vehemently opposed to this thing.
I definitely agree that a majority of the country could stand to learn a bit about culture and whatnot, but I don't think that's the way to do it. Did the Palestinians and Isrealis grow to accept each other by living on top of one another? The good intentions of the people who wanna place the mosque there don't matter if the people don't believe it. Public relations is based on perception more than fact
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
The Mosque/Community Center is planned to be like 2 blocks from Ground Zero. This is purely News outlets being retarded and stirring up shit (though I haven't heard much about it in the UK I imagine its pretty big news in the states?). If anything these so called news channels should be focusing on the Pakisani floods because you know it being probably the biggest catastrophe in modern times.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Exactly. So many people just skimmed right over that little fact.....
Shit can get denied for a TON of stuff. This could be why the Greeks are getting denied and the mosque is getting fast tracked. A city might have a law that caps houses of worship at 100 ppl occupancy and they're pushing for 200. They could be asking for a kitchen when the legal definition of house of worship in NYC says no kitchens.
Literally every damn report about these things has failed to mention this stuff, so no one has any clue. To get a variance, you go before a planning or zoning board. Variances are typically granted if the group determines that the rule bending required for approval is minor enough that it will not have a detrimental effect on the city and its residents.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
Don't matter if the reason behind the opposition right or wrong, a majority of people don't want a mosque there. They absolutely have a right to build it there, but from a pr perspective it's a terrible decision.
I'm not so sure. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" may not be universally true, but I honestly believe that this sort of friction is inevitable in a country as diverse as the US, and may prove to be a giant plus in the long term. I'd imagine that most of the people who are opposed to it now, will grow to accept it. The others are a lost cause anyway.
Have you ever talked to a hardcore right winger from the states?
Seriously, I doubt that would ever be accepted by a number of people. Hell, I know a number of independents and left wingers who I consider intelligent people that are vehemently opposed to this thing.
I definitely agree that a majority of the country could stand to learn a bit about culture and whatnot, but I don't think that's the way to do it. Did the Palestinians and Isrealis grow to accept each other by living on top of one another? The good intentions of the people who wanna place the mosque there don't matter if the people don't believe it. Public relations is based on perception more than fact
If americans to some large extent has the perception that one of the worlds greatest religious groups are somehow inherently linked to terrorism then that is a huge issue. Let's not enforce that by making restrictions based on such retarded views? By not allowing that mosque to be built you're basically saying that the above stated view of Islam is somehow a legitimate concern.
Also, this opens up for any number of ridiculous breaches of religious rights i.e. whenever a church, mosque or synagog may appear offensive to some group of people, are you going to react in the same manner?
I'm a little surprised by your position here as generally I consider you a pretty awesome poster.
I think it symbolizes that we know that not all muslims are terrorists obviously and that the majority of them, as a country, we have no problems with.
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.
The law states that the land cannot be stopped under discrimination. Then why is a mosque allowed to be built there but not a Christian church. O thats right Christianity is the majority so you can't be prejudice towards the majority, but if you broke the law to stop a mosque then its prejudice because they are a minority in this country. Is that fair or right?
On August 24 2010 01:52 Gnosis wrote: The question isn't one of legality, it's one of taste (i.e. it will not foster Muslim relations with the West as they're claiming). Anyone who confuses the two needn't be listened to. And to the poster above me, you have a lot to learn of Islam (for starters, not all religions are the same).
It actually is a question of legality. The mosque failed many restriction, but still was given variances to still give them the permits to build the mosque. the Greek Orthodox church that was there for 100 years was not allowed to be rebuilt and not given variances.
They have the legal right to build their mosque on the land they purchased.
Not if the land doesn't meet specifications for a house of worship....
Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.
The law states that the land cannot be stopped under discrimination. Then why is a mosque allowed to be built there but not a Christian church. O thats right Christianity is the majority so you can't be prejudice towards the majority, but if you broke the law to stop a mosque then its prejudice because they are a minority in this country. Is that fair or right?
Read the posts on the rest of this page, re: building restrictions.
Without knowing the nature of the restrictions and the nature of the variances given to the mosque and those not given to the Greek Orthodox church, any accusations of favoritism or discrimination are speculation based upon incomplete information.
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote: There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Location and timing? When will the wounds be sufficiently healed to stop making dumb links? If you really don't believe that islam is a terrorist religion, what makes you think that it's relevant to say that muslims should be more sensitive about where and when they build a church? Should we embrace stupidity? Should they? There'll always be those who will claim that the freedom of others is a threat to their "way of life", without having any valid argument to back up the claim. I think people should only be called moronic if they give in to moronic reasoning. So yeah, the people behind the construction of the mosque are arguably morons, but certainly not for the reason you stated.
Don't matter if the reason behind the opposition right or wrong, a majority of people don't want a mosque there. They absolutely have a right to build it there, but from a pr perspective it's a terrible decision.
I'm not so sure. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" may not be universally true, but I honestly believe that this sort of friction is inevitable in a country as diverse as the US, and may prove to be a giant plus in the long term. I'd imagine that most of the people who are opposed to it now, will grow to accept it. The others are a lost cause anyway.
Have you ever talked to a hardcore right winger from the states?
Seriously, I doubt that would ever be accepted by a number of people. Hell, I know a number of independents and left wingers who I consider intelligent people that are vehemently opposed to this thing.
I definitely agree that a majority of the country could stand to learn a bit about culture and whatnot, but I don't think that's the way to do it. Did the Palestinians and Isrealis grow to accept each other by living on top of one another? The good intentions of the people who wanna place the mosque there don't matter if the people don't believe it. Public relations is based on perception more than fact
If americans to some large extent has the perception that one of the worlds greatest religious groups are somehow inherently linked to terrorism then that is a huge issue. Let's not enforce that by making restrictions based on such retarded views? By not allowing that mosque to be built you're basically saying that the above stated view of Islam is somehow a legitimate concern.
Also, this opens up for any number of ridiculous breaches of religious rights i.e. whenever a church, mosque or synagog may appear offensive to some group of people, are you going to react in the same manner?
I'm a little surprised by your position here as generally I consider you a pretty awesome poster.
Read my posts again dude. Pretty much all I said was that they definitely have a legal right to build (at least from the perspective that you can't deny them because they're Arabs and 9/11 happened and what not) but I think it's definitely dumb for them to put it in an area that the leaders KNOW will piss off a lot of people. I never said I was one of those people. Definitely a bit tasteless, but whatever, I really don't care none too much. I'd like to think I'm intelligent enough to know that not every guy named Mohammad is trying to blow me up.
EPT
