No mosque at Ground Zero

[7SteelGal43]

and not for nothing SCMom, but prior to the national media blitz when the Imam announced or it was found out that this brand new 13 story mosque was going up at this site, how would I or anyone else in the United States outside NYC have known where mosques in NYC are located ? I'd be willing to bet a lot of New Yorkers didn't even know it was there.

[SteelCityMom]

and not for nothing SCMom, but prior to the national media blitz when the Imam announced or it was found out that this brand new 13 story mosque was going up at this site, how would I or anyone else in the United States have known where mosques in NYC are located ? Especially when they aren't even Muslim ?

First off, it's not a 13 story mosque. Mosques do not allow non-muslims to worship in them, they do not allow non-muslims to eat in them and they certainly don't allow swimming pools and basketball courts.

Second of all, why would you need to know where mosques in NY, or anywhere else, are located? And why would it matter if it's 2 blocks away or 4 blocks away from ground zero? They're still the same people going there.

[Wallace108]

Just out of curiosity, do those of you who support the building of the mosque also support southerners' right to display the Confederate flag? This whole debate isn't over Constitutional rights. It's about symbolism. And symbolism is powerful. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't have been any flap over the Confederate flag ... which, oddly enough, was protested by the same people who support the mosque.

[7SteelGal43]

First off, it's not a 13 story mosque. Mosques do not allow non-muslims to worship in them, they do not allow non-muslims to eat in them and they certainly don't allow swimming pools and basketball courts.

Second of all, why would you need to know where mosques in NY, or anywhere else, are located? And why would it matter if it's 2 blocks away or 4 blocks away from ground zero? They're still the same people going there.

And apparently, you don't need to be from Manhattan or NY to not have noticed this, or have cared...nobody has protested it until the media rage began about the "Ground Zero Mosque" and the "Monster Mosque"

I thought you meant to have not known that they had been "worshiping" there for almost 2 years and known about it for that long.

[7SteelGal43]

....but of course this is from the "uber right" CNN so it has to have a biased slant

I found it kinda funny the +/- was 7.5% points, I mean, aren't these polls usually like +/- 2 or 3 ?

[SteelCityMom]

Just out of curiosity, do those of you who support the building of the mosque also support southerners' right to display the Confederate flag? This whole debate isn't over Constitutional rights. It's about symbolism. And symbolism is powerful. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't have been any flap over the Confederate flag ... which, oddly enough, was protested by the same people who support the mosque.

I support it. People can wave whatever flag they want to.

You can argue that people don't like it because of the symbolism, but that doesn't mean you can trample on Constitutional rights.

I find it funny that, for the most part, people who oppose this center and people who, in general, oppose Mosques and Islamic centers being built in their neighborhoods all over the country are the same people (right wing Republicans) who beat their chests about less government involvement in this country. They are not true conservatives. If they were, they wouldn't want the government telling anyone where they can build a place of worship or a religion based community center. And this is not just in terms of the "Ground Zero Mosque", because I know a lot of people oppose it, this is happening all over the country. If you really want the government to "butt out"...then prove it. Leave those kinds of ideals to communist and socialist countries.

P.S. None of this was directed at you or anyone else here...it's just how I feel.

[SteelCityMom]

I thought you meant to have not known that they had been "worshiping" there for almost 2 years and known about it for that long.

Well, of course people who don't live in the area or even the state would know about it. Just like you don't know what mosques are in Texas or Oregon etc. etc.

People in the community though you would think may have noticed it, or heard about it. Or maybe some journalist would find out about it and stir up a big stink. Nobody did until the proposed community center...then the protests started. And not many people took the time to find out how long they had been there...and certainly the mainstream media wasn't going to report on it. I just don't understand the point of protesting a community center that allows anyone of any faith to be involved, when it's been a place of Muslim only worship for a couple years. It's just all backwards to me.

[Wallace108]

I find it funny that, for the most part, people who oppose this center and people who, in general, oppose Mosques and Islamic centers being built in their neighborhoods all over the country are the same people (right wing Republicans) who beat their chests about less government involvement in this country. They are not true conservatives. If they were, they wouldn't want the government telling anyone where they can build a place of worship or a religion based community center. And this is not just in terms of the "Ground Zero Mosque", because I know a lot of people oppose it, this is happening all over the country. If you really want the government to "butt out"...then prove it. Leave those kinds of ideals to communist and socialist countries.

P.S. None of this was directed at you or anyone else here...it's just how I feel.

I don't think opposing the mosque goes against conservative beliefs. As a conservative, there's no way I'd want the government to step in and try to prevent the building of the mosque. It's up to the American people to stop it ... and that's what we're trying to do. And yes, SCM, I want the government to butt out.

[Shoes]

Just out of curiosity, do those of you who support the building of the mosque also support southerners' right to display the Confederate flag? This whole debate isn't over Constitutional rights. It's about symbolism. And symbolism is powerful. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't have been any flap over the Confederate flag ... which, oddly enough, was protested by the same people who support the mosque.

......and that's my beef with this mosque Wallace. It is very symbolic to those who will hit us again. Having the majority of the American people against it with the added world attention only makes it worse. Al Qaeda's targets on 9-11 were all symbolic and this mosque is no different. It is another victory for them, even if they don't have their hand in the pie......yet. We sometimes loose touch with reality living in a cut and paste world.

[tony hipchest]

good stuff. i think the govt should stay out too.

Just out of curiosity, do those of you who support the building of the mosque also support southerners' right to display the Confederate flag?

i think its pretty easy to lump someone in as a supporter and a non-supporter, but there are those who simply chose not to condemn it. its not so black and white.

likewise, just because someone is a non-supporter, doesnt mean they wanna see all muslims in NYC shipped off to concentration camps (though some responses in this thread leave me to wonder).

venom posted something really interesting (not sure how real it was) about local construction workers refusing to bid. that is beautiful, a great part of america, and the right way to go about boycotting, protesting, voicing displeasure.

teh sad thing is, im sure there are plenty of illegals who would gladly replace them and be more than glad to build. still a stance is taken and a point is made.

oh, but to answer your question, i see plenty of dallas cowboys flags waving where im from. i have thoughts of burning them down, but resist.

[SteelCityMom]

I don't think opposing the mosque goes against conservative beliefs. As a conservative, there's no way I'd want the government to step in and try to prevent the building of the mosque. It's up to the American people to stop it ... and that's what we're trying to do. And yes, SCM, I want the government to butt out.

Right, but the only way for the American people to stop it is to have the government step in. It's privately owned land. There are constitutional and property laws that protect private land owners. They would have to be changed by the government to stop it. And if you change a law regarding the right for one religion to build a place of worship, you would have to change it for all of them. I don't want our government or the people of this country to have that kind of power.

The only other way the American people can stop it is by illegal action, as suggested in a couple places in this thread. Some, actions that are no better than the attacks of 9/11 themselves...i.e. blowing the building up or flying a plane into it.

[Wallace108]

venom posted something really interesting (not sure how real it was) about local construction workers refusing to bid.

It's real, but we know that as much as people love the red, white, and blue, they often love green even more. Someone will build it.

A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08

[Mattsme]

venom posted something really interesting (not sure how real it was) about local construction workers refusing to bid. that is beautiful, a great part of america, and the right way to go about boycotting, protesting, voicing displeasure.

teh sad thing is, im sure there are plenty of illegals who would gladly replace them and be more than glad to build. still a stance is taken and a point is made.

oh, but to answer your question, i see plenty of dallas cowboys flags waving where im from. i have thoughts of burning them down, but resist.

Wow. I seriously had the exact same thoughts when I read those posts, cowboy flags and all. Get out of my head you liberal nut.

[Wallace108]

Right, but the only way for the American people to stop it is to have the government step in.

SCM, that's the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals see the government as the solution. Conservatives see the government as the problem. If the American people don't want to see this mosque built, they need to apply enough pressure to stop it. But the government (even local government) should not step in.

[Mattsme]

And if you change a law regarding the right for one religion to build a place of worship, you would have to change it for all of them. I don't want our government or the people of this country to have that kind of power.

I do.

I don't want the government to step in here. But mainly because in the America I love I would like to think the government would not have to step in here. If the poll posted earlier is correct, and you average the numbers of all three political parties out, that means over 68% of ALL Americans oppose this structure being built in this location.

Doesn't that mean something?

[ricardisimo]

I find it curious when and how democracy is embraced on these boards. When it entails trampling on a minority's constitutionally guaranteed rights - like here and over in the gay marriage thread - suddenly the majority is to be heeded.

On the other hand, I've brought up numerous polls - although mostly over at SF, not so much here at SU - that were conducted that showed majority support for aspects of the welfare state, universal health care, opposition to the war, support for the UN, etc., etc....

I was roundly and soundly ridiculed. Policy decisions clearly are not to be left to the rabble, the mob ("the mob" and "mob rule" were the actual terms used several times, which is informative). But telling a minority what they can and cannot do because someone might be offended... Absolutely! That's democracy!

People need to check themselves here.

[MasterOfPuppets]

I do.

I don't want the government to step in here. But mainly because in the America I love I would like to think the government would not have to step in here. If the poll posted earlier is correct, and you average the numbers of all three political parties out, that means over 68% of ALL Americans oppose this structure being built in this location.

Doesn't that mean something?

there ain't a damn thing the government can do in this situation. they're bound by the constitution. the same constitution everyone loves until it protects someone or something they disagree with.

[Mattsme]

there ain't a damn thing the government can do in this situation. they're bound by the constitution. the same constitution everyone loves until it protects someone or something they disagree with.

Like I said. I don't want the government to step in.

[ricardisimo]

I've got to get in this one.Let them build it.I agree with the religious freedom thing.Thats a right many have died to preserve.So then that gives the right for others to blow the damn thing down,like the twin towers were. Try and build it.You may find it harder than you think.I say go for it !What kind of freakin nation is this?Whoever wants to build it will run out of money....due to having to start over and over and over again,before realizing it is not one of the best ideas to come down the pike.

Cool. when i pull up in my ryder rental truck i can take out 2 types of sin in the world in one shot. SWEET!!!

If you would just be kind enough to lean forward and speak directly into the microphone... Are you telling us that you not only support domestic terrorism, but that you plan on engaging in it yourself? I just want to be clear about this when the FBI shows up and starts asking all of us questions.

"2 types of sin"... give me a fuckin' break.

[Mattsme]

I find it curious when and how democracy is embraced on these boards. When it entails trampling on a minority's constitutionally guaranteed rights - like here and over in the gay marriage thread - suddenly the majority is to be heeded.

On the other hand, I've brought up numerous polls - although mostly over at SF, not so much here at SU - that were conducted that showed majority support for aspects of the welfare state, universal health care, opposition to the war, support for the UN, etc., etc....

I was roundly and soundly ridiculed. Policy decisions clearly are not to be left to the rabble, the mob ("the mob" and "mob rule" were the actual terms used several times, which is informative). But telling a minority what they can and cannot do because someone might be offended... Absolutely! Go for it!

People need to check themselves here.

Who said the majority needs to be heeded here but not in other situations?

Who exactly needs to check themselves?

I'm not being facetious, just honestly curious and don't want to be lumped into a group of people with a double standard. The only double standard I subscribe to is "two girls kissing is hot, two guys kissing is gross." What can I say, I'm a flawed individual.

There are certain opinions I have, unrelated to this thread, that I know I'm in the minority on. If I lived on a small island with only a few like-minded individuals, I would expect my government to step in and enforce my opinion. But I don't. I live in America. I'm grateful for that. And I would rather be one of the unhappy minority with regards to those opinions, than one of the ignored majority.

[MasterOfPuppets]

Like I said. I don't want the government to step in.

i know. i'm just saying even if the government wanted to appease the masses...they can't... the only way this thing won't get built is if the "developers" , decide its just not worth it.

[ricardisimo]

Yep... just about as much need as there is for a mosque at Ground Zero.

You mean like the the one that's already there, with its faithful spilling over into the streets every week? There appears to be quite a need, indeed.

Hopefully there will be just as many naughty gays and lesbians spilling into the streets as well very soon, getting hitched in mosques and Catholic churches and Southern Baptist halls all over the country.

[ricardisimo]

Who said the majority needs to be heeded here but not in other situations?

Who exactly needs to check themselves?

I have no idea whether or not you were part of the gang back at SteelersFever, but feel free to peruse the "Locker Room" threads, and you'll see at least four or five familiar names there (and here) making familiar arguments here (and there). Your post reminded me of several dozen very similar arguments.

You ask "68% of ALL Americans oppose this structure being built in this location... Doesn't that mean something?" Let me ask you: What does that mean?

[MasterOfPuppets]

You mean like the the one that's already there, with its faithful spilling over into the streets every week? There appears to be quite a need, indeed.

Hopefully there will be just as many naughty gays and lesbians spilling into the streets as well very soon, getting hitched in mosques and Catholic churches and Southern Baptist halls all over the country.

i bet the divorce lawyers are just creaming themselves thinking about that day.

[Wallace108]

I find it curious when and how democracy is embraced on these boards. When it entails trampling on a minority's constitutionally guaranteed rights - like here and over in the gay marriage thread - suddenly the majority is to be heeded.

They have a constitutional right to freedom of religion. And we have a constitutional right to freedom of speech. What I find interesting is that for many years the left has championed freedom of speech and have gotten their way with the use of protests and intimidation. Now that the right is starting to use the same tactics, the left is crying foul.

[Mattsme]

I have no idea whether or not you were part of the gang back at SteelersFever, but feel free to peruse the "Locker Room" threads, and you'll see at least four or five familiar names there (and here) making familiar arguments here (and there). Your post reminded me of several dozen very similar arguments.

You ask "68% of ALL Americans oppose this structure being built in this location... Doesn't that mean something?" Let me ask you: What does that mean?

Here's my post that "reminded you of several dozen very similar arguments."

I do.

I don't want the government to step in here. But mainly because in the America I love I would like to think the government would not have to step in here. If the poll posted earlier is correct, and you average the numbers of all three political parties out, that means over 68% of ALL Americans oppose this structure being built in this location.

Doesn't that mean something?

Go ahead, read it again.

Nothing in that post is an "argument." Nothing in that post can be disputed, discredited, or in ANY way proven false. As a matter of fact, I just realized I even called it a "structure", instead of a "mosque."

Try again.

And to answer your question:

To me, 68% of Americans opposing something means that I hope they find a way of making their opposition heard. In this case, it means I hope that in some way these Americans find a legal way to prevent this proposal from becoming a reality. Whether it is by way of construction companies or workers refusing to take part in it, as was previously discussed, or some other legal method that hasn't yet crossed my mind.

Not because I disagree with the proposal, but because I want to live in a country where if I decide to go out to eat with a group of ten friends because I enjoy their company, and three of us are in the mood for pizza, but the other seven want steak, WE GO EAT A DAMN STEAK.

And for the record:

No. I was not a part of the gang back at this "SteelersFever" you speak of. I was doing an advanced google image search on "thong pics" one lonely night, and the night club section here popped up. Yellow and black just happen to be my favorite colors, and I like the way "Polamalu" rolls off the tongue. It makes me giggle when I say it out loud.




(whew, did anyone really take the time to read all that crap I just wrote?)

[zulater]

Wow.... seventy five pages, that's quite a bit. Not trying to hijack the thread or anything. I mean yes, we should appreciate the value of freedom of religion, but because of what happened, this certainly is a hard decision, one that I wouldn't want to make. If you say no, you could be sued because of that freedom, if you say yes, you're going to have complaints, etc. It's just a big win-lose situation.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...2-apostasy.htm

I guess my major problem is that I have an issue with extending freedom of religion to a religion that is so dead set against it when it concerns others.

Question:
Does Islam proscribe death for the Muslim who converts to another religion?



Summary Answer:
Those who turn their back on Islam are to be put to death. This is confirmed by the words and deeds of Muhammad. There is no such thing as freedom of belief in Islam.



The Qur'an:
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"

Qur'an (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist." This verse is speaking of infidels (ie. "slay the infidels wherever you find them" 9:5) who obviously became Muslim to escape the sword, but the Hadith make no distinction of how a Muslim came to be a Muslim. Apostasy is always punished by death.

Other verses that seem to support the many Hadith demanding death for apostates are Qur'an verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

Advocates for killing apostates have pointed out that the supporting hadith are reliable and thus qualify as law according to verse 4:80 - "Whoso obeyeth the Messenger obeyeth Allah."



From the Hadith:



The reason why executing apostates has always been well-ensconced in Islamic law is that there is an indisputable record of Muhammad and his companions doing exactly that.



Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "



Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."



Bukhari (84:57) - "[In the words of] Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"



Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."



Bukhari (84:58) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"



Bukhari (84:64-65) - "Allah's Apostle: 'During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'"



Abu Dawud (4346) - "Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?" Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to "repent" under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad's former scribe who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine "revelations" upon finding out that he could suggest grammatical changes. He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).



Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 - "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed." (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).




Additional Notes:


Apostasy is taken so seriously by Muslims that it spawned the first of many major wars within the community immediately after Muhammad's death, when several tribes wanted to leave Islam and go back to their preferred religion.



Although it has been perfectly acceptable under Islamic law to kill Muslims who choose to embrace another religion, contemporary Muslims have realized how weak and draconian this causes Islam to appear. (A sound philosophy does not require a death threat to retain believers). As such, there is a modern tendency to deny fourteen centuries of Islamic teaching and even the very words of Muhammad himself - at least for Western ears.



Such defenders disingenuously quote verse 2:256 which states "Let there be no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out from error" and a fragment of verse 10:99-100, "Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?" But nearly all Muslim scholars agree that both verses were spoken by Muhammad during an earlier time in his teachings, when he did not have the power to compel others. They are abrogated by later verses, such as verse 9:29, which clearly commands Muslims to fight unbelievers until they relent and either accept Islam or a state of humiliation under Islamic rule (an obvious illustration of compulsion).



These apologists also ignore the fact that apostasy is not mere unbelief, but unbelief that follows belief, which neither of these verses address. Muhammad's recognition of the distinction is reflected in his own deeds, following his capture of Mecca, and in those of his companions following his death (the Ridda Wars).



There is also a difference between saying and believing. Whereas Muhammad knew that people could (and should) be forced to profess that there is no god but Allah, he also recognized that true belief cannot be forced. This may be the reconciliation between the contrasting remarks.



In any event, the damage is done. Islam expanded across the globe by conquering people of other religions and then making life miserable for those who didn't "embrace Islam." Once spoken, a person was locked into the faith. Any sign of false witness - such as raising their children in another faith - was punished with death. Thus did Islam gradually supplant other religions.



Tellingly, the same modern apologists who lie about Islam's mandate to kill apostates do not champion the right of other religions to evangelize in Muslim countries. In fact, they discourage it. They know as well as anyone that Islam cannot compete within the arena of free ideas and must rely on brute force at some level to retain believers.

[MasterOfPuppets]

No. I was not a part of the gang back at this "SteelersFever" you speak of. I was doing an advanced google image search on "thong pics" one lonely night, and the night club section here popped up. Yellow and black just happen to be my favorite colors, and I like the way "Polamalu" rolls off the tongue. It makes me giggle when I say it out loud. [/B]

your not the donkey show guy ?

http://forums.steelersfever.com/show...how#post694460

[Mattsme]

your not the donkey show guy ?

http://forums.steelersfever.com/show...how#post694460

I was young and needed the money!

[ricardisimo]

To me, 68% of Americans opposing something means that I hope they find a way of making their opposition heard. In this case, it means I hope that in some way these Americans find a legal way to prevent this proposal from becoming a reality. Whether it is by way of construction companies or workers refusing to take part in it, as was previously discussed, or some other legal method that hasn't yet crossed my mind.

There's already been several folks within this thread alone who've discussed blowing the thing up. I'm sure it's much worse at private Tea Party quorums. The point is this "national dialogue" really shouldn't be taking place at all, no more so than when my wife and I were looking at schools for our son or picking out colors for our living room. Whether on religious, privacy or private property grounds, this is no one's business. It's not a majority rule issue.

And yet here an entire nation is inserting themselves into this matter. I question the motivations of those in the media who have stirred this particular pot of shit. And my point in engaging in this discussion is to try to remind people that a) it's not their business; and b) the sky is not falling. Everything's going to be just fine. A year from now no one will even remember this debate... unless cold-hard-steel does indeed drive a van full of explosives into the side of the community center.

Not because I disagree with the proposal, but because I want to live in a country where if I decide to go out to eat with a group of ten friends because I enjoy their company, and three of us are in the mood for pizza, but the other seven want steak, WE GO EAT A DAMN STEAK.

Or, you all split up, eat whatever you want, and agree to meet in an hour back at the movie theater. That's actually much closer to what's happening here. Three of your friends don't want to go for pork, while you and the other six guys do. You can't force them to eat ribs.

And for the record:

No. I was not a part of the gang back at this "SteelersFever" you speak of. I was doing an advanced google image search on "thong pics" one lonely night, and the night club section here popped up. Yellow and black just happen to be my favorite colors, and I like the way "Polamalu" rolls off the tongue. It makes me giggle when I say it out loud.

I prefer saying "Kemoeatu", especially to the wife.

(whew, did anyone really take the time to read all that crap I just wrote?)

No. Not a word.