71% of New Yorkers want mosque away from Ground Zero

[probinson]

that is why I haven't responded to the posts. It is showing ignorance and burying their head in the sand.

I could probably be accused of a lot of things, but "burying [my] head in the sand" certainly isn't one of them. Since I jumped into this discussion, I've read so many news articles, both pro and con, read testimonies from people who lost loved ones on 9/11 that DON'T want the mosque, read testimonies from people who lost loved ones on 9/11 who DO want the mosque, I've read the liberal left and the far right viewpoints, as well as other more moderate viewpoints... and after all of that I've come to a conclusion; for many people in this discussion, facts and evidence are completely irrelevant, unimportant and an annoyance and inconvenience to them.

It is "silly rhetoric" when I posted about what Muslims have told me from their own mouth.

Actually, the term I've been using is "empty rhetoric". But with regards to the arguments you've posted, I'd say a more accurate term would be esoterica.

Your argument seems to hinge upon the fact that you've spoken with your brother-in-law and your Muslim neighbors, an thus you've become an expert on Muslims, and we could never possibly understand because we haven't spoken with them. It seems as though you believe that your brother-in-law and your neighbors speak for the entire Muslim community, and that's that.

Further, your claim that we are "ignorant" further illustrates that you believe your position is esoteric, and understandable only by the initiated group who apparently agree with you.

Sharon, you are right. Ignorance truly is bliss.

Oy vey. It's incredibly frustrating to have someone constantly call you ignorant while offering nothing of substance to back such a charge. Oh, how I wish we could discuss the points raised in this discussion without resorting to such empty and pointless accusations.

 

[disciple-ofjesus]

Pete. Take a hike. Nice twist of things. I will not further comment on your nonsensical replies. AND further more, NONE of that was DIRECTED to you. SO if the shoe fits, wear it. I am not an expert, but neither am I stupid enough to believe that only talking to a few people negates what all Muslims are up to. Stay ignorant, blind whatever you want to call it. Keep being PC and when they have taken over, you can go..GEE..someone said this would happen. But...NAH, it is "esoteric". Yes, I DO mean ignorance is bliss. Keep blowing off the things that have been said here. That's ok. You have that right. But I also have the right to actually believe what is going on.

 

[dorig59]

This issue reminds me of something that was in the news a few months ago or so. It's not exactly the same, but the "logic" behind it is the same.

Do you all remember the soldier that died, he was gay, his family brought him back home to do his funeral.....and outside of the funeral home there were people picketing because the guy was gay. I thought that was a horrible thing to do to that man's parents and family. But the logic was that the picketers were exercising "free speech". So, sure, they do have free speech as is allowed in this country of ours. But was that a good thing to do? NO. It was nasty, rude, inconsiderate, pointless, etc, etc.

 

[disciple-ofjesus]

It is that callous blatant attitude being shown here in this thread. Pete didn't even know the people listed, well, he "assumed" it was names of the people killed 9/11. That callousness amazes me..didn't even really know. AND then the "oh well" attitude. It is disgusting.

 

[probinson]

Stay ignorant, blind whatever you want to call it. Keep being PC and when they have taken over, you can go..GEE..someone said this would happen. But...NAH, it is "esoteric".

Do you even know what esoteric means? Here;

confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle
​

Isn't that your position? You claim to have inside knowledge of the Muslim takeover of the world that I am "blind" and/or "ignorant" to.

Also, you may not realize it, but you're putting yourself in a really awkward position, where you're actually rooting for the Mulsim takeover of the world so that you'll be able to say "I told you so!"

Yes, I DO mean ignorance is bliss. Keep blowing off the things that have been said here.

But I'm not blowing off the things that have been said here. In fact, I've replied to nearly every piece of information that has been presented here in detail. OTOH, the other side of this discussion has not reciprocated. When the claims presented have been shown to be either completely false and/or dubious at best, it has been completely and totally ignored and "[blown] off". All evidence to the contrary is irrelevant and has been completely ignored.

That's ok. You have that right. But I also have the right to actually believe what is going on.

If you say so.

BTW, I've never been much one for hiking, so I'm not going anywhere.

I honestly don't understand all the anger and hostility coming from you, but I can assure you that your responses will not deter me from responding to the emotional hype and empty rhetoric being presented and accepted as "fact".

 

[probinson]

This issue reminds me of something that was in the news a few months ago or so. It's not exactly the same, but the "logic" behind it is the same.

Do you all remember the soldier that died, he was gay, his family brought him back home to do his funeral.....and outside of the funeral home there were people picketing because the guy was gay. I thought that was a horrible thing to do to that man's parents and family. But the logic was that the picketers were exercising "free speech". So, sure, they do have free speech as is allowed in this country of ours. But was that a good thing to do? NO. It was nasty, rude, inconsiderate, pointless, etc, etc.

Agreed. I don't think that was the right thing to do at all.

And I also agree that the logic is exactly the same.

Something that seems lost on people here is that it is quite possible to support the right to do something without agreeing with it. IOW, while I would agree that picketing a funeral is indeed in bad taste and I absolutely disagree with the choice to do that, I also recognize that they have the free speech to do that.

 

[probinson]

It is that callous blatant attitude being shown here in this thread. Pete didn't even know the people listed

Did you know the people listed?

well, he "assumed" it was names of the people killed 9/11.

Wasn't it? Here is probably where that list came from;
List of Victims from Sept. 11, 2001 - September 11 | Terrorist Attacks | World Trade Center Attack - FOXNews.com

I'd say my assumption was 100% accurate, given the context of the discussion at the time, and the above link.

That callousness amazes me..didn't even really know AND then the "oh well" attitude. It is disgusting.

The question posed was;

On what premise would you deny the right to build this building?
​

A partial list of the victims of 9/11 does nothing to answer that question. Those people were senselessly murdered by terrorists on 9/11 (as I've already said twice now), there is no debating that.

But it has NOTHING to do with the question asked. That's not an "oh well" attitude.

I don't know why you're determined to make me look like a callous, uncaring monster with my head, but it's simply not true.

 

[dorig59]

Agreed. I don't think that was the right thing to do at all.

And I also agree that the logic is exactly the same.

Something that seems lost on people here is that it is quite possible to support the right to do something without agreeing with it. IOW, while I would agree that picketing a funeral is indeed in bad taste and I absolutely disagree with the choice to do that, I also recognize that they have the free speech to do that.

Yes, I think the Founding Fathers did not mean things like this when they were thinking of free speech. People in this country really need to use their brains.

It's kind of like the religious freedom thing. If you put a nativity scene in front of a building in town, you're insulting everybody and there's this big flap about it. Or if a teacher has the nerve to have a Bible on her desk or says Merry Christmas to her pupils. Or if a kid wears a t-shirt with Jesus on it to school. People will say it goes against THEIR religion and they don't want to see it. But it's okay to build a mosque in the vicinity of ground zero.

 

[dies-l]

Yes, I think the Founding Fathers did not mean things like this when they were thinking of free speech. People in this country really need to use their brains.

What do you mean by "things like this"? The rights of non-Christians to practice their religion? The rights of controversial groups to own and use property as they see fit without interference from the government, because their viewpoints are not PC? If these are the types of rights that you think the Founding Fathers did not intend to protect, I would strongly advise you to read the Bill of Rights and do a bit of research into the history as to why it was written. This is exactly the type of thing that Founding Fathers meant when they were thinking of free speech.

It's kind of like the religious freedom thing. If you put a nativity scene in front of a building in town, you're insulting everybody and there's this big flap about it. Or if a teacher has the nerve to have a Bible on her desk or says Merry Christmas to her pupils. Or if a kid wears a t-shirt with Jesus on it to school. People will say it goes against THEIR religion and they don't want to see it. But it's okay to build a mosque in the vicinity of ground zero.

Teachers are allowed by the Constitution to wish their students a Merry Christmas and/or have a Bible on their desk. A student has a constitutionally protected right to wear a t-shirt with Jesus on it, provided that it does not otherwise violate a reasonable dress code (e.g., a dress code that prohibits all t-shirts with writing on them). (A while back, I used to hear from the kids at my church that their school would not allow them to evanghelize, wear religious attire, read their Bible, and so forth. So, I told them all that, if any of them were ever punished for doing any of these things, I would personally assist them in taking whatever action was necessary against the school. Several years have passed, and since I have been making that offer, the complaints have ceased. Sadly, there is a perception, that is largely created by Christians, that the free exercise of Christianity is threatened in this country. This perception has the effect of chilling religious speech. There is little or no evidence, however, that this is the result of any government action). I will defend every bit as vigorously the First Amendment rights of anyone who has such rights denied them by the Government. Likewise, I will defend the rights of Muslims to build a mosque, a community center, or any building they choose provided it is consistent with the reasonable laws pertaining to their ownership of property.

The problem here is that people do not see that, if we are to deny Muslims their right to build a Mosque or other building on their own property for no other reason than that we don't like what they believe, then we tacitly permit the same type of discrimination against Christians.

 

[probinson]

People in this country really need to use their brains.

Agreed.

It's kind of like the religious freedom thing. If you put a nativity scene in front of a building in town, you're insulting everybody and there's this big flap about it.

We have nativity scenes all over the place, including in our public park, at Christmas time. I know there have been instances where nativity scenes have caused a ruckus in the news, but I'm not so sure that's the norm.

Or if a teacher has the nerve to have a Bible on her desk or says Merry Christmas to her pupils.

I don't mind if teachers have a Bible on their desk, but I don't want my child's teacher teaching my children what they should or should not believe.

It is my responsibility as a parent, not the public school's, to ensure that my child is brought up in the way he should go so that when he is old, he won't depart from it. It is the school's responsibility to teach my children how to spell, read, add, subtract, etc. At least around these parts, that's pretty much how it goes.

Of course, every now and again you get some loony, wacko activist teacher or school board member who tries to push an agenda, but for the most part, our teachers around here actually teach kids school stuff.

Or if a kid wears a t-shirt with Jesus on it to school. People will say it goes against THEIR religion and they don't want to see it.

Again, this must be different where I'm at. Kids where "Christian" t-shirts to school every day around here without repercussion.

But it's okay to build a mosque in the vicinity of ground zero.

Sure. Just like it's OK to have falafel carts, a knittery, 2 strip clubs, a horse betting bureau, a deli, a hair restoration center and a lingerie store within the vicinity of ground zero [source].

 

[disciple-ofjesus]

I don't know why you're determined to make me look like a callous, uncaring monster with my head, but it's simply not true.

nah, you are doing a good job on your own.

 

[psalms 91]

I believe the wishs and sensitivities of those who live there should be enough top discourage any building like that anywhere close at all but then why should those feelings matter to those who want to destroy us anyway.

 

[Questioning Christian]

I read this somewhere, and I think it applies to this mosque debate.

IOW, I believe that the Love of God sometimes compels us to forgo our "rights". According to 1 Corinthians 13:5, Love does not insist on its own rights, nor its own way... even though you may have the right, that doesn't make it right.

With that said, even though I disagree with them, I still support their rights. Even though I personally find the whole thing remarkably irresponsible, selfish and self-serving, not to mention a horrible witness for Christianity, I absolutely respect their right to do it.

I believe there is a remarkable difference between giving up your rights because the Love of God compels you vs. giving up your rights because someone else tells you that you should.

 

[Questioning Christian]

This video is fairly balanced and realistic.

I like all the perspectives on this video.

YouTube - Islamic center and mosque controversy

 

[probinson]

I read this somewhere, and I think it applies to this mosque debate.

How so? All throughout this discussion, you've said should Muslims should give up their rights. I think this applies to that concept (emphasis added);

I believe there is a remarkable difference between giving up your rights because the Love of God compels you vs. giving up your rights because someone else tells you that you should.​

 

[dies-l]

I read this somewhere, and I think it applies to this mosque debate.

I think that this is fair. It is entirely reasonable for people who don't like the proposed building to ask its owners not to build it because it might cause some discomfort. However, it is not reasonable to demand the government to prevent them from building.

The same could be set for the church in Florida that wants to burn Korans on 9/11. As Christians, we should seek to persuade them that this is not the right thing to do. However, we should not attempt to impede their right to do so.

 

[probinson]

Here's what I find rather interesting about this odd comparison;

As you'll note in the thread about the Qu'ran burning where I made that post, I pointed out one key difference; They're Christians. The people who want to burn the Qu'ran are Christians, or rather, my brothers and sisters in Christ. Therefore, we have a much greater responsibility as the Body of Christ to admonish them when we see them doing wrong than we do to followers of Islam.

What I find interesting is that a lot of this discussion has centered on what Muslims have and have not done, and if they're not going to do it, why should we? If I'm being quite frank, this line of logic reminds me of my children; "My sister didn't pick up her toys, so why should I?"

"Muslims don't allow us to build churches, so we shouldn't allow them to build mosques." "They'd cut off your head if you tried to build a church over there!" Seriously? Just stop and think for a second how incredibly childish that logic is.

Since when did the actions of Muslims become the measuring line for how we as Christians should act? Since when do we determine how to respond based on what Muslims have or have not done for us? Yet this has been the logic employed throughout much of this discussion.

I don't rightly care how followers of Islam would act. The actions of Christians should not be AT ALL based upon actions of followers of Islam.

 

[probinson]

I think that this is fair. It is entirely reasonable for people who don't like the proposed building to ask its owners not to build it because it might cause some discomfort.

Agreed.

However, it is not reasonable to demand the government to prevent them from building.

Agreed.

The same could be set for the church in Florida that wants to burn Korans on 9/11. As Christians, we should seek to persuade them that this is not the right thing to do.

Agreed.

However, we should not attempt to impede their right to do so.

Agreed, with the caveat that due to the imminent danger the Qu'ran burning ceremony would pose to our troops, there may be a precedent to say that such an action actually goes beyond free speech. But IANAL, and I wouldn't be the one to make that call.

 

[dorig59]

"I don't rightly care how followers of Islam would act. The actions of Christians should not be AT ALL based upon actions of followers of Islam."

You really don't get it. You do not understand the minds of these people. Its not a matter of setting a good example. THAT actually is grade school thinking. Its a matter of preserving our way of life, of not allowing them to dismantle our country.

And please note I am not talking about any type of violence against them or book burnings. We should not let them take over our country like they're doing in Europe.

And as far as that video goes, its not a matter of being fair or balanced, its simply showing you what's going on over there.

 

[probinson]

Its not a matter of setting a good example.

Who said anything about setting a good example? People seem to have lost the ability to do the right thing SIMPLY and ONLY because it's the right thing to do. Not because it sets a "good example", not because someone else thinks it's the right thing to do, but simply because the Love of God compels us to do the right thing.

Its a matter of preserving our way of life, of not allowing them to dismantle our country.

How does Park51 threaten "our way of life" and/or "dismantle our country"?