First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Mosque at ground zero
25064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / New Jersey
Offline
Posted 9/1/10

DomFortress wrote:


MSherid89 wrote:

I think this isn't a matter of taste (as many are making it out to be) but a matter of Law. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states;

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...'

In other words, there should be no debate as to whether we should allow it to be built or not. Regardless of whether its distasteful or not, the owners of the property are legally allowed to build a mosque/community center there. If the government were to intervene, they would be violating a founding principle of this country, something both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (among others) referred to as 'a wall of separation between church and state.'
However, where's the "separation" when the states obviously supporting the church?

But the project also has strong political support. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer are among its backers, and Cordoba House was endorsed by lower Manhattan’s Community Board No. 1 in a near-unanimous vote last month.(citation)
Furthermore, since your argument doesn't include regular citizens, you can't stop the debate unless you intend on violating the freedom of speech.



Bloomberg is not endorsing Islam or the mosque, nor is he funneling public funds to build the community center, therefore it isn't a violation of the first amendment. To the contrary, he's supporting their right to build it within the vicinity of ground zero. As Mayor Bloomberg said


"The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
- Wall Street Journal's text of mayor Bloomberg's speech. http://bit.ly/ctr9uS

Secondly, I didn't mean to suggest that citizens shouldn't be allowed to debate the placement of the mosque; that was not my intent at all, I was just stating that the issue, when it comes down to it, is a legal one and no matter how many of us (myself included) dislike the placement of the building we can't do anything legally about it. In fact, this is a non-issue when it comes to the legality of the mosque's location, Whether its a matter of taste on the other hand is something else all together.

On a side note, the case of Everson v. Board is a perfect example of state support for a religion and Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, explicitly defines the meaning of the 'establishment clause.' It's a good read.
Posted 9/2/10

MSherid89 wrote:




Bloomberg is not endorsing Islam or the mosque, nor is he funneling public funds to build the community center, therefore it isn't a violation of the first amendment. To the contrary, he's supporting their right to build it within the vicinity of ground zero. As Mayor Bloomberg said


"The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
- Wall Street Journal's text of mayor Bloomberg's speech. http://bit.ly/ctr9uS

Secondly, I didn't mean to suggest that citizens shouldn't be allowed to debate the placement of the mosque; that was not my intent at all, I was just stating that the issue, when it comes down to it, is a legal one and no matter how many of us (myself included) dislike the placement of the building we can't do anything legally about it. In fact, this is a non-issue when it comes to the legality of the mosque's location, Whether its a matter of taste on the other hand is something else all together.

On a side note, the case of Everson v. Board is a perfect example of state support for a religion and Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, explicitly defines the meaning of the 'establishment clause.' It's a good read.
Well then, at least that's one tourist attraction which I won't see myself visiting.
Ronin
95035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / California
Offline
Posted 9/2/10 , edited 9/2/10
The location of this proposed building is not on Ground Zero; a memorial is being constructed where the Twin Towers were. The only historical significance here is that there was a Burlington Coat Factory there which was damaged by debris from the attack on the Twin Towers and subsequently never re-opened. I don't even know if anyone died in the building on that day. Now the land has been sold and a new building is going to be constructed. If a porn shop or any non-Muslim building was opened there, no one would care; so why is it so wrong for Muslim people to have a mosque/community-center built? Being "insensitive" to the victims is not a valid reason; there is no law against being insensitive and there shouldn't be one. If you're one of the people who thinks that Muslims can't be trusted, then you sir are racist/prejudice.

Frankly I don't like the Islamic religion, but this isn't an issue of what we like or don't like. It's about what is right, and it's not right to prohibit people from owning property in certain locations while allowing different people to buy it.

Yes, there is a separation of church and state. The political "backers" only back it because they believe that these people have the right to build it (which is true). They are not backing the religion itself as the media would have you believe by calling it 'Obama's Mosque' and other such names to mislead people. If you haven't realized, most of our politicians are Christian and often end up listening to what the Christians want but when they don't listen to what the Christians want, they get labeled as radicals and favoring one religion (Islam) over others even though there are many more cases of Christianity being favored.

Every citizen is free to waste their time arguing that this shouldn't be built but once you try to get the government involved in removing it, you should know that it's against the law and that your endeavor is pointless since it's against the law for them to do anything. The moment the government starts blindly listening to what the majority of people believe, while ignoring the law, is the day that we spiral down into chaos. I trust the general public's decisions much less than I trust the governments.

Edit: Oops, I didn't read the posts on this page so I may have reiterated some things.
2283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 9/2/10
it is an interfaith community centre not a mosque and there is a mosque in the area since the 1970s
Posted 9/4/10
I love the arguments that people come up for the reason for not building the mosque there. They act as if only white Christians died on 9/11 and there where no other people on the planes or attacked >.> there where other Muslims that where killed on 9/11 but god forbid the news ever talks about this. Also when did ground zero become some holy sight as well?? For crying out loud they have a porno shops blocks away from the site and no one really seems to care about that. In my own state where I live at they don't want the Muslim community here to build a mosque but we don't have a problem building a another Church in town even though we already have 8 >_>, but god forbid they build one building to worship at. Whatever I can care less anymore people in general just piss me the fuck off and I am just starting to care less and less about others.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 9/4/10
Nobody has mentioned this before, but isn't anybody curious as to where this 100 Million dollars is coming from ? Not like everyone has a spare 100 million dollars lying around.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 9/4/10
I support the mosque being built. They have freedom of religion and the right to build on their property just like everyone else. I wouldn't want the government having the authority to break the Constitution and ban a building because it offends people. We have freedom of religion and property rights, not freedom from being offended.
33013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Wales
Offline
Posted 9/4/10
Now I support this as

A)
They're not building a mosque. It's going to be a centre with a prayer room in it. Lots of places have prayer rooms.

B)
It's going to be about a 3 minute walk from the actual ground zero itself, that's quite a distance.

This is a newspaper article written by charlie brooker, he explains it all quite well. I suggest you read it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 9/4/10

JJmoogle wrote:

Now I support this as

A)
They're not building a mosque. It's going to be a centre with a prayer room in it. Lots of places have prayer rooms.

B)
It's going to be about a 3 minute walk from the actual ground zero itself, that's quite a distance.

This is a newspaper article written by charlie brooker, he explains it all quite well. I suggest you read it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque


Even if neither of these were true. What's it matter?

Why are we even talking about this? Didn't Americans resolve the issue of free speach/freedom of association vs. weather or not a group conformed to the expectations of American society back when a bunch of Neo-Nazis wanted to hold a parade in Skokie Illinois?

Just because America is developing (or as Drizza would have us believe, engaged in a long term full blown) hate on for Islam doesn't mean the rights of American's can be casually abrogated because their faith choice is currently unpopular.





75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 9/5/10 , edited 9/5/10

DomFortress wrote:

Well then, at least that's one tourist attraction which I won't see myself visiting.


Wow dude. Just admit you lost this one. That last line is pure sour grapes. I would have thought better of you. For once It's not a matter of overstating your case or getting convoluted with your sociological explanations. You were wrong, Drizza was right(much as I might hate to admit it). Let's move on.


75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 9/5/10
I just noticed the codicile under the title of this thread.

Yes OP freedom is worth it. NOW and always. Unless you want the United States to be a Christian Mirror Image of IRAN. Something as I wouldn't want as a citizen of the country that would probably be the first stop on the way to a new found "manifest destiny".
Posted 9/5/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Well then, at least that's one tourist attraction which I won't see myself visiting.


Wow dude. Just admit you lost this one. That last line is pure sour grapes. I would have thought better of you. For once It's not a matter of overstating your case or getting convoluted with your sociological explanations. You were wrong, Drizza was right(much as I might hate to admit it). Let's move on.
If I lost, then it's not due to a lack of truth from the moderate Muslims. But to rampant showboating to the point of narcissistic grandiosity, at 100 millions a piece of real-estate.

So yes, let's move on from you unwittingly ended up supporting Drizza's uncritically hateful expressions. Whereas I OTOH had to report three of his misleading, flaming, and trolling posts on this thread. But you'll know none the wiser.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 9/5/10
So moderate Muslims dislike the planned building. Whoopee.

I dislike the idea of Neo-Nazis parading anywhere, The burning of any book, and huge bank towers built on money raped from Canadians by the big banks.

All of the above remain legal. (except maybe the neo Nazis I think our HRC has something to say about them).

All of the above are 'worth it' for the sake of freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of speach. If you want to say it's ugly, unwise, provocative.. etc.. go ahead it's a free country. But I gathered you were arguing that the government should prevent the building from being built. and when that argument failed you added a final snipe about "that's one tourist site I'll never visit". Your position and tactics on this particular thread are beneath you.

don't get me wrong do what you like, it's a free country. But I am free also to change my opinion of your as a poster worthy of respect.
Posted 9/5/10 , edited 9/5/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

So moderate Muslims dislike the planned building. Whoopee.

I dislike the idea of Neo-Nazis parading anywhere, The burning of any book, and huge bank towers built on money raped from Canadians by the big banks.

All of the above remain legal. (except maybe the neo Nazis I think our HRC has something to say about them).

All of the above are 'worth it' for the sake of freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of speach. If you want to say it's ugly, unwise, provocative.. etc.. go ahead it's a free country. But I gathered you were arguing that the government should prevent the building from being built. and when that argument failed you added a final snipe about "that's one tourist site I'll never visit". Your position and tactics on this particular thread are beneath you.

don't get me wrong do what you like, it's a free country. But I am free also to change my opinion of your as a poster worthy of respect.
What's wrong for me to call it a mere tourist attraction? When the moderate Muslims themselves don't like it, while I'm not a religious individual.

And did I ever said that the building shouldn't be built, I mean really? When I only expressed what are the cause and consequence of just such notion IMHO, whatever I did gave you that away?

So as you can clearly see, I didn't loose the argument because I didn't oppose the plan for such building to exist.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 9/6/10

Allhailodin wrote:

Nobody has mentioned this before, but isn't anybody curious as to where this 100 Million dollars is coming from ? Not like everyone has a spare 100 million dollars lying around.


Perhaps not but I figured you'd be the last person to try and tell someonelse what they can or cannot do with their own money.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.