Views on construction of Mosque at Ground Zero - Page 5

On August 24 2010 01:57 251 wrote:
go go keith olbermann



I'm not really a fan of olbermann's at all, but I loved this

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).

Bill Vallicella says it well: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/08/the-ground-zero-mosque-the-controversy-continues.html

The construction of a mosque on that hallowed ground is an outrage to the memories of those who died horrendous deaths on 9/11 because of the acts of Muslim terrorists, terrorists who didn't just happen to be Muslims, but whose terrorist deeds were a direct consequence of their Islamist beliefs.

On August 24 2010 02:28 catamorphist wrote:


Mr. Vallicella's personal argument against the mosque seems to be this:



I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it?
+ Show Spoiler +bortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time? Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?

I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some mass murderers held insane, destructive religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on people who hold sane, normal religious beliefs?

On August 24 2010 02:28 catamorphist wrote:


Mr. Vallicella's personal argument against the mosque seems to be this:



I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it?

Christians have been bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time? Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?

I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs?

On August 24 2010 02:16 Bob300 wrote:


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 02:34 Gnosis wrote:


'Christians' who bomb abortion clinics do so as a direct consequence of their errant personal beliefs regarding Christian teaching, but not as a direct consequence of Christian teaching, which would not sanction, approve of or direct such actions at any time. The same can't be said of Islam, and actions such as what we witnessed in 9/11 are held on a legitimate view of the teachings of the Qur'an. You make the mistake of assuming that all religions are the same, have the same basic teachings, view all people the same basic way.



Yes, you do, if you believe 'good Muslims' pray for their enemies.

On August 24 2010 02:34 Gnosis wrote:


'Christians' who bomb abortion clinics do so as a direct consequence of their errant personal beliefs regarding Christian teaching, but not as a direct consequence of Christian teaching, which would not sanction, approve of or direct such actions at any time. The same can't be said of Islam, and actions such as what we witnessed in 9/11 are held on a legitimate view of the teachings of the Qur'an. You make the mistake of assuming that all religions are the same, have the same basic teachings, view all people the same basic way.

On August 24 2010 02:34 Gnosis wrote:


[Edit] Actually, never mind, I'm not going to turn this into a religious debate.

On August 24 2010 02:08 Gnosis wrote:


Then please explain to us how the laws mentioned in the following articles do not apply to the 'ground zero mosque'.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/08/mosque_at_ground_zero_is_it_il.html
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/experts-argue-all-you-want-mosque-project-on-firm-legal-ground

On August 24 2010 02:47 Hawk wrote:

The first one the reporter obviously didn't do homework and plucked quotes without context. It's a crappy article. The second is a better article with real research and shit. However, RLUIPA is hardly some piece of paper that universally trumps all local zoning codes. People are just not understanding what it does at all.

All it does is prevent the Zoning Board and attourneys at the case from flat out denying an application because 'They are Muslims and responsible for 9/11' or something along those lines. It doesn't concern some retarded Republican Senator opening his mouth about something he has no clue about. The law only concerns the people actually involved with the case, and those people aren't dumb enough to deny based on someone's religious beliefs.

In theory, it's a good law since it prevents this shit. It sucks because it allows for basically never ending appeals. RLUIPA doesn't trump a local ordinance that says, for example, HOW buildings are capped at 100 capacity. But variances are a gray area and that's where you get fucked. If a synagogue gets a variance for 115 people but a mosque gets denied for 145, that's pretty much all the grounds that's needed for an appeal. RLUIPA doesn't mean they'll win in that instance, but they sure as shit will get an appeal.

The bottom line from those articles is this: Yes, the city would get sued to shit if a ZB member said, 'We don't approve for TERRORASTS' However, no one involved with the thing is saying that. RLUIPA does not in any way give a HOW free reign to just buy a land and start building. It just means an excuse like 'Well your mosque will piss off all the Christians, sorry' won't fly.

On August 24 2010 02:28 catamorphist wrote:


Mr. Vallicella's personal argument against the mosque seems to be this:



I agree with him to the extent that he and I appear to be on different planets. Is all of New York City now "hallowed ground," or just Manhattan? What's so outrageous about it?

Christians have been bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors on and off for the past decade or two as a direct consequence of their Christian beliefs. Should we stop them from building churches in the area for a few years every time?

Did they ban Ryder trucks in Oklahoma after McVeigh blew up the Federal Building with one? Should Colorado have banned the sale of Quake after Columbine since it would be disrespectful to let people play it?

Perhaps Vallicella should learn some statistics. Given that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet there isn't a 9/11 every day, I'm not convinced that being a terrorist is a "direct consequence" of holding any Islamic beliefs. I suggest that it's a more direct consequence of being a young, reckless nutcase brainwashed by Al-Qaeda.

I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs? Maybe as an atheist I missed the big announcement where we decided to compare how sensible people's religions were and start judging them based on what kind of crazy things their holy texts say; I'm not sure that Christians or Jews would come out that well on that metric. I judge people on their actions.

On August 23 2010 23:52 Emon_ wrote:
You wanna teach Iraq about democracy and equal rights, but you don't respect it in your own country? The hypocrisy is baffling. And yeah, Saudi Arabia doesn't have any churches. Congrats on being just as good as them.

On August 24 2010 02:59 Meta wrote:

Ryder trucks and video games have shown no evidence of leading directly to violence. So, I don't see what that has to do with anything.



And the members of Al-Qaeda were brainwashed by Islam. There is a direct correlation here. Just because there isn't "a 9/11 every day" doesn't speak anything about the link between religious beliefs and violent actions, it only speaks volumes about the inherent good nature of all human beings.



As an atheist I'm astounded that you can't understand that all religious people, especially devout ones, actually believe what they say they believe. Unfortunately every holy text has passages that can be and HAVE BEEN interpreted to promote violence towards outside groups. Even the bible has been used to justify slavery and the crusades, just as the Qur-an has been used to justify the horrific deeds of terrorists.

Even though most people are inherently good, and will never commit atrocities such as these, there's no reason why some people, who aren't inherently good for whatever reason, will use the passages from these books, which they believe to be the word of God, to justify horrible cruelty.

The issue isn't that Islam is a "bad religion" or any of that nonsense. It's that all religions are equally bad, and have no place in modern society. And it's not that all Muslims are being judged as bad, I'm absolutely positive that a large majority of them are good, ethical human beings, because most human beings are good and ethical.

That said, I still support the construction of this Mosque, because in America they have the freedom to do whatever they want with the land that they purchased. Arguing against their right to construct it leads nowhere.