logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> A Mosque near ground zero, Disrespectful to 9/11 victims?
skeeterses
post Aug 5 2010, 03:15 AM
Post #1


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 794
Member No.: 5,233
Joined: July-7-05

From: Maryland
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_...und_zero_mosque
Some people are suing to stop a proposed mosque from being built near the WTC site.

Basically, the idea is that since the 9/11 attacks against America was orchestrated by the Islamic World, allowing muslims to build a mosque near the site of an Islamic terrorist attack would be an insult to the victims of 9/11. If Islam is one of the primary causes of terrorism against the Western World, we probably shouldn't allow any new mosques to be built period. But that's a topic for another debate.

So real quick,
Should an Islamic Mosque be allowed to be built near the site of the 9/11 attacks?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
39 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Raptavio
post Aug 5 2010, 03:45 AM
Post #2


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Question:

Should a Christian church be allowed in the vicinity of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Aug 5 2010, 10:40 AM
Post #3


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(skeeterses @ Aug 5 2010, 05:15 AM) *
Should an Islamic Mosque be allowed to be built near the site of the 9/11 attacks?


It is wrong to say that the 9/11 attacks against America were orchestrated by the Islamic world since the attacks were orchestrated by al qaeda who do not speak or act on behalf of any one but themselves. At most you can argue that the 9/11 attacks were justified by the ideology of Islam, which is more or less true, and were carried out in the name of Allah, which is certainly true, but that doesn't mean the majority of Muslims conspired against the United States.

I see no problem with a mosque being built in the vicinity of the WTC, but I do see a problem with this particular mosque since the people seeking to build this thirteen storey building are almost certainly opposed to the United States and every freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

QUOTE
...as Dan Senor of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in The Wall Street Journal, whatever the project's stated goals, "in the minds of many who are swayed by the most radical interpretations of Islam . . . it will be celebrated as a Muslim monument erected on the site of a great Muslim 'military' victory."

And that's why the question of who precisely will pay to build the $100 million project is so compelling. At first, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf insisted the funds would be raised entirely from the Muslim-American community. But then he told an Arabic-language newspaper in Britain that funding would also come from Arab countries. And it should be noted that Rauf's father was the long-time director of the Islamic Center of New York, which built the mosque on Third Avenue and 96th Street -- a project funded primarily by the governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations.

Now, the Saudis openly fund mosques abroad, spreading the radical Wahhabi strain of Islam, as a means of pacifying their own home-grown radicals. So it would be particularly troubling if Rauf's funding comes from abroad -- particularly from Riyadh. Especially given his own disturbing ties to figures like Hossein Mahallati, Iran's former UN ambassador and an unabashed supporter of Hamas. Not to mention Rauf's own pointed refusal to label Hamas a terrorist organization -- and his statement, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that "United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
Source.

Essentially the construction of this mosque will be seen as a victory for extremist Islam. A visible symbol of America's potency was destroyed and a visible symbol of Islam takes its place. That this happened because enlightened attitudes and liberal morals allow religious freedom will not count for anything but weakness amongst people who would never allow a thirteen story cathedral to be built in their cities.

I doubt the people currently in power in the USA will care about that. The desire to be seen as 'progressive' seems to count for more than a common sense for self preservation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



QUOTE(Raptavio)
Should a Christian church be allowed in the vicinity of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City?
Yes, unless there is a compelling reason why not.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Aug 5 2010, 11:34 AM
Post #4


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Should an Islamic Mosque be allowed to be built near the site of the 9/11 attacks?

Hell, I'm happy that the question actually stated near ground zero, instead of the hyperbolic Hannitization that's been sweeping the media with at ground zero. Will Wilkinson puts it best when referring to Mayor Bloomberg's speech and the faux-controversy surrounding the Cordoba Mosque:

QUOTE
The silly controversy over the downtown mosque is excellent evidence that the conservative movement has become obsessed to the point of derangement with a right-wing version of identity politics that sees everything through the lens of the assumption that American identity is under seige. The modus operandi of the populist right is patriotic semiotics gone wild. 9/11 was a Great Awakening and Ground Zero is a sacred scar representing the sacrifice of those thousands who died in fire in order to shake the rest of us into recognition of the great existential threat to the American Way of Life. To refuse to resist the placement of a mosque next to the grave of those martyred in the Great Awakening is to fail to have heard the call, to fail to understand the battle now underway, to complacently acquiesce to the forces slowly transforming America into something else, into something unAmerican, a place for some other kind of people, a place not worth fighting for. It is to, as they say, “let the terrorists win.”

What Bloomberg has said reveals the utter zaniness of right identity politics. The sanctity of private property and religious liberty are of course essential elements of the traditional American creed. But to actually apply these principles misses the point. For a conservative movement marinating in metaphor, the security of property and the freedom of conscience are just two of many elements that make up who we are, not disembodied rules to be algorithmically honored with no regard to the semiotic context. For the cult of Americanocity, the primary purpose of politics is to preserve and assert imagined American identity against those imagined forces that are imagined to undermine it. I suspect that Bloomberg’s appeal to property and religious liberty will appear to many as a shady, lawyerly attempt to assert the American creed against the interests of American identity. But all he will have accomplished for these folks is to reveal which side he’s really on.

Link

The Cordoba Mosque makes no more difference to me than a fundamentalist Christian Church near the Murrah Federal Building site [h/t Raptavio]. For those such as Moif who see this as a symbolic victory by Islam, I say this. Extremist Islam already got their victory when they spent the money for plane tickets and box cutters, and in return got the worlds only superpower sucked into a decade long war [and counting] while bleeding it's own economy white. Dubious symbolic victories are not only not worth the lives of Americans, but also not worth compromising our Constitutional principles. We've been playing into Al Qaeda's hand since before 9/11, why continue?

Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic pens a piece addressing the Imam heading the Cordoba Initiative:

QUOTE
This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course -- al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims -- but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda's goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden's understanding of Islam than do infidels.

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants.


This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Aug 5 2010, 11:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Aug 5 2010, 12:45 PM
Post #5


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dontreadonme)
For those such as Moif who see this as a symbolic victory by Islam, I say this. Extremist Islam already got their victory when they spent the money for plane tickets and box cutters, and in return got the worlds only superpower sucked into a decade long war [and counting] while bleeding it's own economy white. Dubious symbolic victories are not only not worth the lives of Americans, but also not worth compromising our Constitutional principles. We've been playing into Al Qaeda's hand since before 9/11, why continue?
Come on DTOM, you can do better than that. Thats the opposite of what I'm saying. I didn't say I saw this as a symbolic victory by Islam, I said it will be seen as such by the people who are paying for the new mosque.

As far as I'm concerned, a mosque is just a building. Its the people inside it who make it a threat and if the Cordoba Mosque gang are who I understand them to be, then they shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque anywhere in the entire western world, let alone in New York.

Furthermore, the decade of war which you lament is no great victory for the Islamists. They want victory not war and ten years is nothing to a holy war agenda thats been on and off for fourteen centuries. Do you know why its called the Cordoba Mosque? Its because the Great Mosque of Córdoba in Spain (lost to Islam in 1236) is a symbol of the cause to reestablish the 'global Caliphate'.

edited to get my dates right

This post has been edited by moif: Aug 5 2010, 12:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Aug 5 2010, 12:56 PM
Post #6


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(moif @ Aug 5 2010, 08:45 AM) *
Come on DTOM, you can do better than that. Thats the opposite of what I'm saying. I didn't say I saw this as a symbolic victory by Islam, I said it will be seen as such by the people who are paying for the new mosque.


I didn't misunderstand what you wrote...perhaps my wording was poorly chosen. Symbolic victories are just that...symbolic. Just as no amount of US nationalism and chants of USA..USA...will further the stated war aims....a mosque erected in NYC [where there are already many] will not give substance to the Islamic extremist cause.

How many lives is a symbolic victory worth? How much more damage to our civil liberties is it worth?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Aug 5 2010, 01:10 PM
Post #7


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 5 2010, 02:56 PM) *
I didn't misunderstand what you wrote...perhaps my wording was poorly chosen. Symbolic victories are just that...symbolic. Just as no amount of US nationalism and chants of USA..USA...will further the stated war aims....a mosque erected in NYC [where there are already many] will not give substance to the Islamic extremist cause.

How many lives is a symbolic victory worth? How much more damage to our civil liberties is it worth?
Oof. Thats a tough question. How important are symbols? How important to you is your flag? Your uniform? Symbols aren't just pretty patterns are they? I lost a lot of my patience with Islam when I saw Muslims burning my country's flag, despite decades of friendly help and assistance, only because some one in Denmark drew a picture. Our flag is symbolic of us. Burn our flag and your saying you want to burn us.

I feel no need for revenge, but I refuse to reward such sentiments and granting permission to a group of extremists to build mosques, which are not just symbols, but are used for neferious purposes too (as you've pointed out yourself in times past) is rewarding an enemy in your midst. In essence your granting liberty to the same Saudi ideology which destroyed the world trade centre because it happens to be a religious ideology.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Aug 5 2010, 01:15 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(moif @ Aug 5 2010, 09:10 AM) *
Oof. Thats a tough question. How important are symbols? How important to you is your flag? Your uniform? Symbols aren't just pretty patterns are they? I lost a lot of my patience with Islam when I saw Muslims burning my country's flag, despite decades of friendly help and assistance, only because some one in Denmark drew a picture. Our flag is symbolic of us. Burn our flag and your saying you want to burn us.


Ahh...but here's the rub. Symbols are important....to some. What the flag and the uniform mean to me may be different than what it means to somebody else. I don't have the right nor the moral high ground to dictate what another may feel about or do with that symbol. Allowing the Mosque to be built isn't a reward, it's a right [provided that they go through the proper channels just as any other citizen or group would].

QUOTE
I feel no need for revenge, but I refuse to reward such sentiments and granting permission to a group of extremists to build mosques, which are not just symbols, but are used for neferious purposes too (as you've pointed out yourself in times past) is rewarding an enemy in your midst. In essence your granting liberty to the same Saudi ideology which destroyed the world trade centre because it happens to be a religious ideology.


I understand that you believe Islam to be the 'enemy'...but any belief in an invisible guy in the sky holds the same level of esteem for me. Calling Islam the enemy, is also calling Islamic American citizens the enemy...not to mention American soldiers who practice Islam. Doesn't pass the logic test.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Aug 5 2010, 01:16 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,330
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Unless there are already some sort of zoning restrictions in place that this mosque would violate I don't see any problem with it. I wouldn't change the rules to build it, nor would I change the rules to NOT build it.

I don't believe this would be seen as a victory for extremist Al Qaeda. How many mosques have they bombed? Must be in the hundreds now. A bomb went off in a Pakistan mosque just yesterday. The group doesn't exactly have deference for religious structures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lo rez
post Aug 5 2010, 01:17 PM
Post #10


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 388
Member No.: 10,616
Joined: August-8-09

From: Minneapolis, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent





Should an Islamic Mosque be allowed to be built near the site of the 9/11 attacks?

No. In fact, I propose we bar Muslims from entering an area of two city blocks surrounding Ground Zero and we turn Lower Manhattan into a Mosque Exclusion Zone.

Look, we are either a country of religious freedom or we aren't. Time to choose.

This post has been edited by lo rez: Aug 5 2010, 01:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Aug 5 2010, 01:25 PM
Post #11


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



DTOM

When I say 'the enemy' I'm refering to people who take up arms against us. Islam itself is not the enemy, it is merely the ideologcal justification the enemy uses to take up arms against us.

The greatest disservice you do to both yourself and to the general Muslim population is to allow extremists to flourish under the misguided idea that religious freedom is an umbrella which shelters extremists along with every one else.


Mrs P.

It doesn't matter how many mosques al qaeda bombs. As absurd as it might seem to us, we're not dealing with rational thought here, were dealing with religious fanatcism.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Aug 5 2010, 01:29 PM
Post #12


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(moif @ Aug 5 2010, 09:25 AM) *
The greatest disservice you do to both yourself and to the general Muslim population is to allow extremists to flourish under the misguided idea that religious freedom is an umbrella which shelters extremists along with every one else.


If Feisal Abdul Rauf or the committee to build the Cordoba Mosque were guilty of terrorist acts, then they would be rightly charged. Denying civil rights to Americans based on belief rather than acts is fundamentally illogical, irrational and unconstitutional.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Aug 5 2010, 01:49 PM
Post #13


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 5 2010, 03:29 PM) *
If Feisal Abdul Rauf or the committee to build the Cordoba Mosque were guilty of terrorist acts, then they would be rightly charged. Denying civil rights to Americans based on belief rather than acts is fundamentally illogical, irrational and unconstitutional.
Certainly... if logic and rational thought are products of the Constitution of the United States.

Not being an American my logic is not so dependent. I tend to view the Constitution as a legal document, and as such it is subject to the same flaws and contradictions as can be found in any similar document of good intentions created by people who just stole themselves a lot of land.

My logic dictates that there is no such thing as a perfect law and whilst we may always strive towards noble intentions, as often as not we shoot ourselves in the foot when we refuse to acknowledge the inconsistencies and contradictions our good intentions produce. In other words, even abiding by your Constitution will produce that which you have previously refered to in our debates as 'blow back'.

There is nothing illogical or irrational in recognizing and neutralizing a threat to your own security. Rather it becomes illogical and irrational to tolerate a persistent threat simply because it refers to itself as religious.

The obvious question is at what point does a threat compel a reaction? If you can tolerate a few thousand benign citizens dying then why do you care about the rights of a few malignent citizens? (I don't mean you personally)


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Aug 5 2010, 01:57 PM
Post #14


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(moif @ Aug 5 2010, 09:49 AM) *
There is nothing illogical or irrational in recognizing and neutralizing a threat to your own security. Rather it becomes illogical and irrational to tolerate a persistent threat simply because it refers to itself as religious.


It's pretty simple really.....what has Feisal Abdul Rauf done that is contrary to US law? Or do you advocate a legal structure based upon conjecture and emotion?

QUOTE
The obvious question is at what point does a threat compel a reaction? If you can tolerate a few thousand benign citizens dying then why do you care about the rights of a few malignent citizens? (I don't mean you personally)


Again, simple. The loss of some people during a terrorist attack, while tragic, is a solitary event. Denying civil rights to other Americans based again, upon conjecture and emotion has farther reaching ramifications, and will eventually [if not immediately] effect far more people. If the people behind the Cordoba Community Center can be treated differently due to our emotional reaction....so should Christian fundamentalists, due to advocating violence and legal disparity towards citizens that they don't like.

When confronted with a situation such as this [where there is no discernible nor provable threat to US security], we can either uphold the American exceptionalism that is continually brayed about by 'patriots'...or we can sink into the morass that defines cultures such as extremist Islam.

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Aug 5 2010, 02:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Aug 5 2010, 03:01 PM
Post #15


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Should an Islamic Mosque be allowed to be built near the site of the 9/11 attacks?

To answer the question as phrased, I would say no. While I bear no particular animus toward Islam, I am trying to look at this from the point of view of the victims' families. No, the AQ bombers do not represent Islam as a whole. But to have such a solid reminder of why their loved ones died near their death site seems unnecessary to me. If my loved ones had died there, this would feel like salt in the twound, whether or not it is intended as such (and I don't think it is intended that way).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Aug 5 2010, 03:24 PM
Post #16


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(DTOM)
It's pretty simple really.....what has Feisal Abdul Rauf done that is contrary to US law? Or do you advocate a legal structure based upon conjecture and emotion?
I don't know what Feisal Abdul Rauf has done personally, nor do I know the full extent of US law with regards to what he is about. My understanding is, Feisal Abdul Rauf is however an agent of malignent forces within Saudi Arabia and as such should be treated with the same kind of hostile belligerence as a group of Russian agents recently were. Being a citizen of a country, or adherent of a religion should not be a shield against scrutiny, nor punishment. I do not believe however that American authorities are interested in close scrutiny of Saudi backed clerics because Saudi Arabia exerts a powerful hold over American interests.


QUOTE(DTOM)
Again, simple. The loss of some people during a terrorist attack, while tragic, is a solitary event. Denying civil rights to other Americans based again, upon conjecture and emotion has farther reaching ramifications, and will eventually [if not immediately] effect far more people. If the people behind the Cordoba Community Center can be treated differently due to our emotional reaction....so should Christian fundamentalists, due to advocating violence and legal disparity towards citizens that they don't like.
Conjecture and emotion have nothing to do with the matter. It is simple logic to remove a perceived threat.

Adherence for emotional reasons to a law which may be the instrument of your destruction is illogical. I fear by extending rights to people who wish us harm, we invite that harm.


QUOTE(DTOM)
When confronted with a situation such as this [where there is no discernible nor provable threat to US security], we can either uphold the American exceptionalism that is continually brayed about by 'patriots'...or we can sink into the morass that defines cultures such as extremist Islam.
I will answer this by quoting one of Britains foremost Muslim champions of multiculture; Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

QUOTE
On September 10, 2001, in a newspaper column, I condemned the brutal Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, where girls and women, shrouded in full burkas, were beaten and denied health and education. Joy was banished, as it was in China during the Cultural revolution. Unless stopped, I wrote, the Taliban would extend their reach beyond Afghanistan. The very next day, Taliban-backed Al Qaeda operatives hijacked planes and brought down the Twin Towers. The U.S., Britain and other allies went into Afghanistan to fight a war that goes on and on. Two reasons were given: to stop Al Qaeda and liberate the people from the oppressive regime.

I could never have imagined, nine years on, that the Taliban would be claiming to have 'won the war' in Afghanistan. Or, much worse, that our politicians and Muslim 'leaders' here would allow their twisted ideology to spread across Britain. Make no mistake, Taliban devotees are in our schools, playgrounds, homes, mosques, political parties, public service, private firms and universities. And if we are to have any hope of combating them, we need to stop this attitude of appeasement and understand why so many Muslims are attracted to the most punishing forms of belief, suppressing women and children.

Eye-watering amounts of Saudi money goes into promoting Wahhabism. They fund mosques, religious-schools, imams, conferences and trips to Saudi Arabia. They are our wealthy allies and so are never questioned or stopped. Free-thinking Muslims have lacked courage to oppose what is going on, while politicians do nothing for cynical reasons - best, they think, not to antagonise possible voters. Meanwhile, the liberal position is to let people be and do what they wish within the law. Liberals tolerate the intolerable because they don't have to live with the consequences. Yet the problem is in part caused by liberal values.
Source.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Aug 5 2010, 03:38 PM
Post #17


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(moif @ Aug 5 2010, 11:24 AM) *
Being a citizen of a country, or adherent of a religion should not be a shield against scrutiny, nor punishment.


Nor do I believe that. I have no issue with a standard background check to ensure that he is not a part of a terror or otherwise criminal organization. But at present time, to anyone knowledge.....he is not.

QUOTE
Conjecture and emotion have nothing to do with the matter. It is simple logic to remove a perceived threat.


Conjecture and emotion is the only defense brought forward by opponents of the Community Center. There is no discernible threat, only bluster and rhetoric.

QUOTE
Adherence for emotional reasons to a law which may be the instrument of your destruction is illogical. I fear by extending rights to people who wish us harm, we invite that harm.


So Islamic extremism is going to destroy us? How? Aside from the fact that we've already given them a larger victory than they could have imagined.....I find it unrealistic to presume that a terror movement is going to bring this nation down, ala destruction....unless we continue to radically alter our lifestyle so that we fully transform from liberal democracy to police state.

Rights aren't extended to American citizens....they can only be taken.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ultimatejoe
post Aug 5 2010, 05:04 PM
Post #18


Group Icon

********
Studley Do-Right

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,329
Member No.: 497
Joined: February-14-03

From: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(moif @ Aug 5 2010, 11:24 AM) *
QUOTE(DTOM)
It's pretty simple really.....what has Feisal Abdul Rauf done that is contrary to US law? Or do you advocate a legal structure based upon conjecture and emotion?
I don't know what Feisal Abdul Rauf has done personally, nor do I know the full extent of US law with regards to what he is about. My understanding is, Feisal Abdul Rauf is however an agent of malignent forces within Saudi Arabia and as such should be treated with the same kind of hostile belligerence as a group of Russian agents recently were. Being a citizen of a country, or adherent of a religion should not be a shield against scrutiny, nor punishment. I do not believe however that American authorities are interested in close scrutiny of Saudi backed clerics because Saudi Arabia exerts a powerful hold over American interests.

What are you basing this understanding on? Everything I have read says that he is well respected within the interfaith community and is an ardently pro-American Muslim leader. I've read all kinds of blogs and similarly dubious sources that say he is Anti-American, but those all seem to stem from three out-of-context statements that he has made publicly.

First, that America "was an accessory" to the 9/11 deaths. Now that is how everyone is positioning it, but the quote I read said "American foreign policy was an accessory", and in that he is correct. Rauf goes on to say that America's policy of supporting brutal dictators in the Middle East results in radicalization and anger, and he is correct. That does not make America "at fault", and he is not blaming the victims. He is talking about the realities of the political situation which gives rise to this kind of radicalized Islam.

The second thing I see him being attacked for was his refusal to comment on whether or not Hamas was a terrorist organization. To me it certainly is, and for all I know he agrees with me. However, in his position his ability to act as a moderate Islamist is dependent on his ability to reach a wide audience; and alienating a widely popular and influential Islamist group endangers his ability to do that.

The third area that the man has been attacked for was his comments about World War 2; specifically that "The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

Now, every response I've read sees this as some sort of attempt to establish moral relativism, but the more obvious interpretation is simply this: Christianity doesn't encourage the slaughter of innocent civilians in War, but it still happens, and the same is true of Islam.

Is there any evidence that he has an agenda other than promoting better relations between Islam (and Muslims) and the West, moif?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Aug 5 2010, 05:08 PM
Post #19


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 5 2010, 05:38 PM) *
Nor do I believe that. I have no issue with a standard background check to ensure that he is not a part of a terror or otherwise criminal organization. But at present time, to anyone knowledge.....he is not.
And how do you know he or his organisation were checked?
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Some U.S. politicians such as Republicans Peter T. King and Rick Lazio, and Independent Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, asked for an investigation of the group’s finances, especially its foreign funding. King said: "The people who are involved in the construction of the mosque are refusing to say where their [$100 million] funding is going to come from." Lazio said: “Let’s have transparency. If they’re foreign governments, we ought to know about it. If they’re radical organizations, we ought to know about it.”

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, also noted:

There should be transparency about who those investors are, whether that money is coming from domestic interest or not, and if it's coming from foreign interests we need to know, because I think that's a liability, and it shows that there is another agenda rather than domestic security and tranquility.

Abdul Rauf said he would raise money from the local Muslim community, foundations, and bonds, but NBC and The New York Post reported that in contrast he also told a London-based Arabic-language newspaper that he would seek funding from Muslim nations.
Source.
~


QUOTE(DTOM)
Conjecture and emotion is the only defense brought forward by opponents of the Community Center. There is no discernible threat, only bluster and rhetoric.
I have read a great deal more than conjecture and emotional appeals with regards to the opposition of this mosque and I wonder where you get this impression from? Asking for clarity with regards to the financing of mosques is an ongoing concern and not just with regards to this mosque. Saudi backed clerics are operating in large numbers now, in all western nations and a great many have been linked to extremist and terrorist groups. Far worse than terrorism is the fact that these Saudi backed mosques each become a teaching ground for the spread of anti democratic, extremist Islam with women and children bearing the brunt of the consequences of this infiltration. Western authorities, apparently scared of offending religious sentiments are turning a blind eye to the sort of bigotry and oppression on a scale that western socities have not seen since before the Victorian age.

Furthermore, conjecture is the only recourse left available when the funding and purpose of such a mosque remains obscured and no offical investigation has been seen to be carried out. Emotions are bound to run high when the people behind the construction of the mosque reply that building a mosque in the vicinity of the World Trade Centre is 'no big deal'. Source.
~



QUOTE(DTOM)
So Islamic extremism is going to destroy us? How?
The way it has destroyed so many other nations in the past and the way it is gradually turning Europe into a war zone. By the popular consent of a population under intense pressure. By the gradual Talibanization of children as described by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
~



QUOTE(DTOM)
Aside from the fact that we've already given them a larger victory than they could have imagined.....I find it unrealistic to presume that a terror movement is going to bring this nation down, ala destruction....unless we continue to radically alter our lifestyle so that we fully transform from liberal democracy to police state.
It isn't going to be a terrorist movement. It will be main stream Islam. Terrorism is merely the one facet upon which you have focused your attention, the means by which main stream Islam portrays itself as moderate by contrast.
~


QUOTE(DTOM)
Rights aren't extended to American citizens....they can only be taken.
Abdul Rauf is a Kuwait-born Muslim of Egyptian origin. His constituional rights as a citizen were granted to him when he became a citizen.


editted to reply to UJoe

QUOTE
Is there any evidence that he has an agenda other than promoting better relations between Islam (and Muslims) and the West, moif?
Its his lack of clarity with regards to who is paying for his mosque that arouses my suspicions, not his dubious statements which seem to be standard fare for Muslim clerics, that and the name of the mosque which is a clear provocation in of itself.

The actions of this 'well respected, interfaith community leader and ardent pro-American' is akin to a Spanish bishop attempting to open a religious centre in honour of El Cid, in the vicinity of the Dome of the Rock, refusing to explain who was paying for the construction whilst dismissing local complaints as mere bigotry.



This post has been edited by moif: Aug 5 2010, 05:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Aug 5 2010, 05:21 PM
Post #20


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(moif @ Aug 5 2010, 01:08 PM) *
And how do you know he or his organisation were checked?


Because in the climate we live in these days, if dirt is to be had, dirt will be found. There are no shortage of groups such as the ACLJ that will go to any length necessary to stop the construction of the Community Center. Do you advocate stringent background investigations of any pending and future Islamic Centers, or just this one? What about Christian churches?

QUOTE
I have read a great deal more than conjecture and emotional appeals with regards to the opposition of this mosque and I wonder where you get this impression from?


I get the impression because it is fact. If there were opposition any more intellectually advanced than conjecture and emotion, the dots could then be connected between this Community Center and national security. It cannot, or you would have been able to make that connection by now.

QUOTE
It isn't going to be a terrorist movement. It will be main stream Islam. Terrorism is merely the one facet upon which you have focused your attention, the means by which main stream Islam portrays itself as moderate by contrast.


So Islam is the enemy? Listen, I find the doctrine espoused by Christian fundamentalists to be more of a threat to Constitutional principles, than I fear Islamic extremism....but it is illogical to ban churches or the practice of their faith if they pose no discernible threat.

QUOTE
Abdul Rauf is a Kuwait-born Muslim of Egyptian origin. His constituional rights as a citizen were granted to him when he became a citizen.


Agreed. However, as he has been an American citizen...his constitutional right to practice his faith is enshrined......it is not being extended to him.

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Aug 5 2010, 05:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

39 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: September 20th, 2018 - 06:49 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.