Mosque planned for ground zero. - Page 6

And what was your point when you said


then?

It's just that if you're going to whine about discrimination and belittling groups, it's probably not a good idea to do it in the next fucking sentence.

Reference was to this:


which I felt deserved response since I was named as the reference. Moreover, that was separate and apart from my point of depicting the lack of tolerance from mosque developers to majority sentiment (pick a poll) against construction.

Right. That's understood. But if you can write:


that basically loses you the right to complain when someone uses the phrase 'you people'. Ever again.

That's the thing about you people, you Christian-capitalist fundamentalists. You want to be able to say whatever you like, no matter how aggressive and superior. But you just don't think things through. You people. You stupid, foolish, selfish people.

Oh, Jesus. IT IS DISCRIMINATION. That's my point (that you're still missing)! It is the exact kind of discrimination practised by the majority of those opposed to the Park51 Project. No, not every one, but the majority. There is no way you can oppose the center based solely on the fact that it's an Islamic center unless you're blaming Islam, not the terrorists, for 9/11. If you would allow a Christian center there and not an Islamic center, then you're guilty of the "you people" mentality, whether you utter the phrase or not.

Oh... and the phrase itself is borrowed from Ross Perot, that Pinko Commie Liberal...

I think you are wrong here; most of those opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque are opposed to it simply because of its proximity to Ground Zero. Has nothing to do with Islam. Additionally, if all these people are opposed to Islam, why were silent during the construction of the 100s of other New York mosques?

So these people would oppose a Christian center there? If not, then you're still missing my point.

To answer that I need to advance a question; remind me what the jihadi hijackers screamed when the planes hit the World Trade Center towers/Pentagon, was "Allah Akbar" or "Alleluia" exalted?

Bingo! We have a winner! You're saying that because the terrorists were Muslim, then all of Islam is responsible!

See how easy that was to be honest.

Nope... I am only saying because the fanatical jihadis who misinterpreted the religion they practice are the one's solely responsible; and thus the World of Islam, of which these fundamentals were a part, should exercise far better judgment on setting up recruitment centers next to jihad sites.

Oh. I see. "Recruitment centers".

Also, you should really learn how to use the semicolon properly, or stop using it altogether. And reread your third grade English book, specifically the chapter concerning conjunctions...

because...; and thus...

Because you're still not seeing the point that you're asking the Muslims developing this community center; Muslims who had nothing at all to do with 9/11; to be sensitive to the sensibilities of bigots who don't differentiate Islam from terrorism; and thus this is the end of our conversation.

Quick question Mr. Sensitivity; would you object to an organization, using the freedom's inherent within the U.S Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment and its freedom of speech, from exercising such freedom wherever they chose? You support that universally?

~

Downtown Atlanta for example? How about the KKK opening up an outreach recruitment office next to the Dr. Martin Luther King Center? According to the First Amendment the KKK would have every right to open a center next door. See a problem?

Back on religion, you support such freedom wherever faithful chose to express it? How about the Japanese opening a Shinto Shrine next door to the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor? See a problem?

Or perhaps the First Amendment should be employed with respect and tolerance as most people understand it to be, except you.... Just because the Mulsims have the right, under US law, to open a mosque next to Ground Zero doesn't mean they should. That's the point you've missed...completely!

Bad example, David. Here's an analogy for you:

KKK:Christians::Jihadists:Muslims

So, it would have to be a Christian community center next to the MLK Center in your example. Your side of the story, to be consistent, would to not allow it because it would be insensitive of Christians to build a center next to the site because the KKK is a fanatical wing of the religion.

Massive FAIL by Campy.

For starters, the proposed Islamic Community Center is not "next door" to Ground Zero.

Furthermore... there is, in fact, a Shinto shrine in Honolulu just a few miles from Pearl Harbor that has been there since 10 years after the Pearl Harbor attack.

http://www.midweek.com/content/colum..._pearl_harbor/

http://search.volunteerhawaii.org/org/8850292.html

And my point is provem again, and again, and again.

Not the brightest bulb in the barn, that one.

Oh? The building being considered for a mosque was hit on 9/11 by a hijacked airliner's landing gear. Yeah it's next door!


Just a few miles? And in related news, the mosque developers are tax deadbeats =>

Mosque big owes 224G tax
By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN
Last Updated: 6:41 AM, August 29, 2010
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/m...#ixzz0y3PiK1OR
Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.

Not quite right, you forget that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist Christian pastor, so it might be acceptable to have a Christian Church built across the street. However, since he was an African-American fighting for civil rights then having one of these across the street might be more of an issue:

http://www.kingidentity.com/

or

http://books.google.com/books?id=r5B...istian&f=false

Or perhaps one of these community and outreach cultural center:

http://www.americannaziparty.com/

The question now is whether any hate group is allotted the same right to the 1st Amendment?--Please cite cases. \

Incorrect. It's the mainstream group being conflated with the fringe group that is the issue here. My analogy stands, regardless of MLK's faith.

Yet another clown is directly calling Islam a "hate group".

My point gets proven again and again and again.

The only people opposed to the project are bigots or those who are worried about the feelings of bigots. Period. And that includes Howard Dean, so it's not a partisan issue.

Some of the people who died on 9/11 were Muslim. The country that was attacked was a country that freely allows Islam to be practiced. FineTunes has no point, except when he's saying "hate groups" and First Amendment rights, he's saying his statement is somehow applicable to the entire Islamic faith.

Not a bigot? Riiiight.

Please cite how this statement relates to the Park51 Project in any way.

IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO MY POST, NO I AM NOT CALLING ISLAM A HATE GROUP. IF YOU HAVE READ MY POST IN THIS THREAD, IT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE RIGHT OF THE CORDOBA/PARK 51 ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER/MOSQUE BEING BUILT BOTH AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND AS A MORAL RIGHT.

I offer the examples above in response to CD's and BR's statement of building a KKK or Christian building across from MLK memorial in Atlanta.

The question is valid in light of the Supreme Court ruling in NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA V. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, 432 U. S. 43 (1977). In that case the issue was also a 1st amendment issue--freedom speech and the right to assemble. Even the ACLU sided with the NSPA. If raising this issue makes me a bigot or racist in your eyes, then you are being narrow minded if you can't debate the issue without raising or falsely accusing me being anti Islamic.

If you are referring to another post, please quote in your post then it will be more clear who you are referring.

I was referring to NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA V. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) as a case where the Supreme Court held:


....

after the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court:


This case was also a First Amendment issue.

The examples in my post were in response to CD's and BR's question what if a KKK center was built across MLK Memorial in Atlanta. I thought that this was a free forum--if I'm incorrect in my assumption, then I'm wasting my time here and will move on

Did you read the posts in the thread? That wasn't BR's question at all. It was Camp David's question, and BR was responding to it, saying the comparison is absurd (which it is).

You were responding to BR saying he was "not quite right" in saying the correct analogy would be:

Muslim center:Ground Zero::Christian Center:MLK Memorial

That is the correct analogy, as BR pointed out.

Then you somehow brought "hate groups" into the mix, while knowing all along we're discussing the Islamic Community's (not a hate group) right to build a community center near Ground Zero. If I misunderstood your point, there's a very good reason why.

So please cite what this has to do with the topic of this thread.

YOU HAVE FAILED TO SEE THE POINT I'M RAISING AND HAVE NOT READ MY PREVIOUS POST IN THIS THREAD OR IN OTHER RELATED THREADS




MY POST ON THIS THREAD:

CONTINUING:


Raising from whether it CAN be built to whether it SHOULD be built--valid point for discussion, isn't it?








I suggest that you read these. Please go to the original post so you can also read the quotes that did't copy.

I'm somewhat surprised that you are leveling these accusations at me when you had your run in with CD over the following

In the words of Captain, Road Prison 36: What we've got here is... failure to communicate. from Cool Hand Luke (1967).....

and perhaps it is partly my fault.

My post #216 was to BR's response # 212 to CD's post #211.


Which raises the issue of having a hate group who is diametrically opposed to
to another group having a center built across the street of the other group's memorial center. The question would be not whether the KKK had the right to do so, but whether they should.

My question was directed at whether they had the right under the Constitution. Citing NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA V. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, 432 U. S. 43 (1977), it could be construed that they might have the right under the First Amendment.

Where the confusion on my part lies in BR's analogy of the statement KKK:Christians::Jihadists:Muslims which I took as BR's statement. BR then offers CD's statement as Christian community center next to the MLK Center in your example or CCC:MLK so to continue with the statement is it then CCC:MLK::Jihadist:Muslims? BR then completes the analogy as to be consistent, would to not allow it because it would be insensitive of Christians to build a center next to the site because the KKK is a fanatical wing of the religion. Where does the CCC being built next to the KKK come in CCC:KKK?

Your statement makes it more clear what BR's analysis is and BR should have clarified it as such.
KKK:MLK≠Muslim Center:Ground Zero makes more sense. TT statement Muslim center:Ground Zero::Christian Center:MLK Memorial

Where I believe the failure to communicate on my lies in the thought that I'm equating the Park 51 group as a hate group though the example that I gave. My question was poorly phrased and I meant only to ask the question, not referring to the Park 51 group, but whether a hate group has the same rights as other groups in building centers near sensitive areas. I was not comparing the Park 51 group or any Islamic group with any hate groupIf I gave that impression, I'm extremely sorry and I apologize.

As I stated in my two long post here and if you have read any of my post in the Segovius' Official Islam Thread! you should know that I am not anti Islamic or have any hatred of Muslims. IMHO the Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque should be built at that location.

The only card in the Democrat deck is the race card and here you see it in action; despite the fact that (1) most Americans and certainly most New Yorkers are against this project, (2) despite the fact that opposition to the project is not about Islam but one of respect for the feelings of Ground Zero survivors, and (3) despite the fact that alternate sites for the Mosque are available, Democrats keep resorting to the race card and demonizing all those opposed to this project.

Since when can majorities decide what minorities can do or not?

There are inalienable rights guaranteed by the US-constitution, free speech, property-rights and freedom of religion are part of it, if you want to sacrifice these because you think that the majority thinks something is insensitiv (by the way the majority are bigots) you might as well throw away the constitution.

By the way why are churches allowed near schools and kindergardens? I heard some priests engaged in sexual abuse of children and youths...

Nightcrawler

When the majority, in this particular case, knows better than the minority. You are aware we live in a democracy where the people govern? Let's put this issue up for a proposition vote in November and let the people of New York decide. That's the solution!


You're absolutely right here; there are guarantees in the U.S. Constitution and nobody is attempting to deny those to Muslims in the practice of their faith. Moreover, the U.S. Constitution advances the selfsame protection that the other 100+ mosques in New York City practice - rights that, mind you, no other Muslim nation in the world advances.


Here is where you go astray I feel; nobody is asking the abrogation of rights, merely the respect of others. That's it! Stop trying to make this a Constitutional and/or religious issue when 100+ other Islamic institutions in New York City are afforded those Constitutional protections. It is only one location that is in question, by the majority of Americans, and the majority of New Yorkers, know that construction will inflame the anxiety of 09/11/01 and, in the end, harm religious freedom in the long run...


And some Islamic terrorists bomb restaurants... your point? Please return to topic please...

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

First what you suggest is a recipe for tyranny. It's call tyranny of the masses or tyranny of the majority. Second, we do not live in a democracy. We live (or used to anyway) in a federal, constitutional republic. We have a constitution and a form of government that was intended to protect minorities from majorities. We have a constitution that was intended to protect people's lives, liberty and property. If the property on which this facility is to be built is private and someone (like you) decides that something that is generally speaking a peaceful and non-rights violating use of the property is to be put to a vote...then we might as well just shred the fucking constitution right now, all throw up our hands and say we no longer value liberty in this country. I'll grant you, this is already happening in a myriad of small and incremental ways already. But this is just naked aggression and violation.



But in effect this would be. There is no legal reason to deny these people the right to build this thing. None.



Untrue. If you are suggesting putting to a vote what someone can do with their own property, then you are suggesting the abrogation of their rights.



Wrong again. What you're suggesting is the very first step in ending religious freedom in the long run. Let them build the thing.


Sorry Camp David, you are wrong on this issue.

If there are Ground Zero survivors who oppose the Community Center for no reason other than religion, than they are just as bigoted as anyone else who shares that view. Perhaps Park51 can help to heal their wounds and show them that their bigotry toward the whole of Islam is misguided.

Ground Zero church: anti everything, no very vocal opponents:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_699322.html

This same person believes that record filibusters of the minority are what the US needs. the majority only knows better when it is right wing national socialist aka GOPiss.

They are also very interested at keeping out Muslim traffic from the area so neighboring businesses can not enjoy increased foot traffic.

Fantastic news!
At least it won't be finance by the same terrorists who own Fox.

Poll: 2 in 3 New Yorkers Want Mosque Moved


http://www.christianpost.com/article...-mosque-moved/

One solution offered by Paterson is to move proposed project:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...al-for-mosque/

One of the problems with this solution besides being the wrong solution, is that the state owned property cannot be used to build any religious structuresas there have been several Supreme Court decisions that prevent religious symbols being on public owned lands. Moving the Park 51 Islamic Center would be sending the worn message that the US an intolerant of Muslims as undesirables.

Just consider the call for the burning of the call to burn the Qur'an and the reaction in Indonesia
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...102250384.html

A growing concern is that opposition to the building of the Park 51 Islamic Center is not an isolated incident:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6756521.shtml

The PEW survey shows that the favorable opinions of Islam has decreased from 41% to 30% from 2005 to 2010; however it should be noted that the unfavorable rating during the same period only rose 2% (36% to 38%).

There appears to be a difference between partisanship:

Views on Violence and Islam:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1706-3.png

Age Grouping and Support/Opposition to Park 51 Islamic Center:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1706-4.png

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1706/pol...islam-violence

INTERESTING...

If a Christian Church is involved with public monies liberals scream about separation of Church & State...

Yet is a Muslim Church gets public financing they are silent... More hypocrisy!!!