Anti_Islam protests victory for extremists?

[CDNBear]

I understand that what is 'tasteless' is a subjective assertion, but even a subjective assertion can be shown to be have no factual basis.

My interpretation of the Imam's speaches, and the owners assertions, are factual enough for me. You see them differently.

That doesn't make me a bigot, or intolerant.

The subjective assertion is that 'erecting this building is tasteless'. If it ends there, then we can leave it as a subjective assertion. If it continues to 'erecting this building is tasteless because...' then those details must be justified in order to exemplify the tangibility of this tastelessness.

And I've suffeciently proved for myself, that it is tasteless. You have a completely different point of view. I respect that.

So, there is reason for quibbling over what defines tasteless in this event.

Sure, then I have to entertain PETA on another matter of futility.

As I mentioned before, that some other forum poster tried to find a similar event and failed, does not justify this as a tasteless act. Your argument implies that simply because no similar event has existed in the past, then clearly no similar case can be justified now.

No, my point was eao acknowledged the lack of taste, by asserting that a Japanese place of worship had been built at Pearl Harbour. That is all I was trying to convey.

That is a slippery slope and doesn't work. Even courts that rely on precedent to aid their judgments can find that former cases could still be tossed in favour of a new judgment.

Sure, especially when mitigating circumstances are at play. But in this case, there is enough proof for a civil court to find in my favour, in my opinion.

Secondly, the owner making whatever statements he wants to put forth about his creation does not put that creation in bad taste if we actually know what that creation will be used for.

Ya, Ronald MacDonald builds a restaurant and says in English it's all about the kids. But in businessese, it's all about the profits. Are you fallowing me? Intent has a great deal of impact here.

The community center will not be used in any matter that reflects bad taste.

OK, if that is true, can you pass on Friday nights Lotto Max numbers please?

If you would like to argue this point, then go for it. But if you think that Imam's comments are enough to show that, then you are mistaken, since what he may say and what will actually happen are two different things. And what you are arguing is that the true purpose of this building is tasteless, not Imam's vision.

I think the placement of a Mosque at this site, is tasteless. Full stop.

The commentary of the owner and the Imam, confirm my suspicions.

This isn't about building a Mosque, this is about the placement of one.

You need to prove why it is tasteless.

Ya, the PETA folk tried a similar line of crap on me once too. They failed. Being purposely obtuse, has a tendency to do that to ones argument.

And that something else which supposedly did exist but doesn't now as one argument does not act as proof. Similarly, that the guy who is erecting this building said something you don't like also does not act as proof.

Hmmm, I see. So the fact that I may find something tasteless, based on my perceptions, and my evaluation of the evidence isn't proof? OK. If you say so. I had the same opinion about building a casino at Greasy Grass Creek. But since you say the expressed feelings, which lend greatly to the exposing of the intent, of the owner and Imam, isn't proof enough I guess you're right. By your logic, we need to remove the stated evidence of key players in all actions from this point on.

I'll remember that in the future mentalfloss.

Lets say we agree to disagree mentalfloss. You simply refuse to acknowledge glaring facts.

 

[ironsides]

Faux news knows no shame, lol.

You know what else gets lost in all the hyperbole?

The fact that most of the people that have spoken out about the Mosque in this thread, have said it isn't classy, and that they wouldn't put it there. Not that it was outright wrong and it should be banned.

Acknowledging that though, might interrupt some peoples perceptions of the opposing view.

You are absolutely right, building the Mosque is outright wrong and it should be banned. No more beating around the bush.

 

[CDNBear]

You are absolutely right, building the Mosque is outright wrong and it should be banned.

I like to say things like we should ban Islam in the west, but that's to wind up the ideologues, and provoke conversation. I wouldn't ban the Mosque from this location either. It's against all I stand for.

I do however think the owner would/should have some class and move it elsewhere.

Just like how we remove pseudo religious cultural paraphernalia from open places, to not upset the left progressives and people who build Mosques in places that hold such a terrible memory for some.

 

[mentalfloss]

Lets say we agree to disagree mentalfloss. You simply refuse to acknowledge glaring facts.

Bringeth the facts!

You are absolutely right, building the Mosque is outright wrong and it should be banned. No more beating around the bush.

Obviously you haven't been reading CDNBear's posts. Apparently, there is no assertion to actually stop the building, but it is simply a matter of bad taste and we should leave it at that.

 

[CDNBear]

Bringeth the facts!

You've already ignored the fact that both the Imam, and the owner have expressed certain ideologies that would make some people question their sincerity.

Their English commentary, does not mach their Arabic.

You've already said that doesn't matter.

What else can I say?

It matters to me.

It doesn't matter to you.

We're at an impasse.

Obviously you haven't been reading CDNBear's posts. Apparently, there is no assertion to actually stop the building, but it is simply a matter of bad taste and we should leave it at that.

I speak for my self mentalfloss.

 

[mentalfloss]

You've already ignored the fact that both the Imam, and the owner have expressed certain ideologies that would make some people question their sincerity.

Hey, post the quotes. Post the ideologies. Let's talk about it.

 

[ironsides]

I like to say things like we should ban Islam in the west, but that's to wind up the ideologues, and provoke conversation. I wouldn't ban the Mosque from this location either. It's against all I stand for.

I do however think the owner would/should have some class and move it elsewhere.

Just like how we remove pseudo religious cultural paraphernalia from open places, to not upset the left progressives and people who build Mosques in places that hold such a terrible memory for some.[/FONT]

[/FONT]

The area they want to build the Mosque is a in business district, here is a map showing all Mosques in the area. My real reason for banning it is that it just would be another tax free building on Manhattan Island. That property is worth a fortune to the city. (I think all churches should pay taxes on the land they own.)

http://local.yahoo.com/results?stx=mosque&csz=New+York%2C+NY&viewtype=map

 

[CDNBear]

Hey, post the quotes. Post the ideologies. Let's talk about it.

YouTube - EXCLUSIVE: Imam Rauf Exposed: "America Has Muslim Blood on Hands,N**word, Suicide bombers

Some will agree, even I do on some levels, but you have to weigh that against...

"Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

When asked about acknowledging Hamas was a terrorist group.

Sorry, anyone that endorses state expressed and sponsored genocide, is my adversary.

I could accept that, if only, he hadn't endorsed two Muslim Brotherhood off shoots, Islamic Society of North America, and International Institute for Islamic Thought.

The title of his book, in Malaysia...

"A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11. What's Right with Islam "

Which was republished in a non commercial edition, with his cooperation, by the two aforementioned groups.

That's enough for me to challenge his sincerity, when in front of western cameras.

The area they want to build the Mosque is a in business district, here is a map showing all Mosques in the area. My real reason for banning it is that it just would be another tax free building on Manhattan Island. That property is worth a fortune to the city. (I think all churches should pay taxes on the land they own.)

http://local.yahoo.com/results?stx=mosque&csz=New+York%2C+NY&viewtype=map

I do to, but I'm still not comfortable with banning a religious building, without cause.

Oddly enough, it looks like the Greek Orthodox Church on ground zero (One that actually had multi faith services, prior to the attacks), will be expropriated and not allowed to rebuild.

 

[DaSleeper]

I think this has been posted somewhere but I will repeat it here as an analogy...
If someone should happen to kill a family member, and someone else who has voiced their opinion in public on numerous occasions that the murdered person and his family deserved what happened, should happen to purchase a house next door and all the time voicing that opinion in public......it certainly would not be against the law but anyone who wouldn't think it is not in bad taste needs to reflect on what if it was a member of his family.......

 

[CDNBear]

I think this has been posted somewhere but I will repeat it here as an analogy...
If someone should happen to kill a family member, and someone else who has voiced their opinion in public on numerous occasions that the murdered person and his family deserved what happened, should happen to purchase a house next door and all the time voicing that opinion in public......it certainly would not be against the law but anyone who wouldn't think it is not in bad taste needs to reflect on what if it was a member of his family.......

I like that analogy, but I'm still getting stuck on the back breaking way North American culture, has had to take a back seat to religions when it comes to the pseudo religious practices that have been a part of our collective culture for decades. But as soon as one of those religions is asked to rethink, the placement of a Mosque...

"Bigot!!!"

"Intolerance!"

Sad really.

 

[DaSleeper]

Some kind of double standard....I would imagine...:roll:

This one of the headlines I got by just googling "Bible in School"

Kids Getting In Trouble For Religious Beliefs At School

 

[CDNBear]

Some kind of double standard....I would imagine...:roll:

This one of the headlines I got by just googling "Bible in School"

Kids Getting In Trouble For Religious Beliefs At School

Wow...

I just did the same search.

Did you take a look at the stories on that page?

 

[DaSleeper]

You mean This One????????????????
ISLAM : HOW TO GET RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM: A SIX-STEP GUIDE

 

[CDNBear]

You mean This One????????????????
ISLAM : HOW TO GET RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM: A SIX-STEP GUIDE

Which was preceded by this one...

Hot Air Student suspended for bringing rosary beads to school

How odd...

There's a whole lotta nonsense going on, all over the place...

If people just stopped an thought for a second, I think we could avoid a lot of this shyte.

 

[mentalfloss]

Some will agree, even I do on some levels, but you have to weigh that against...

"Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

When asked about acknowledging Hamas was a terrorist group.

Sorry, anyone that endorses state expressed and sponsored genocide, is my adversary.

I could accept that, if only, he hadn't endorsed two Muslim Brotherhood off shoots, Islamic Society of North America, and International Institute for Islamic Thought.

The title of his book, in Malaysia...

"A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11. What's Right with Islam "

Which was republished in a non commercial edition, with his cooperation, by the two aforementioned groups.

That's enough for me to challenge his sincerity, when in front of western cameras.

I see nothing really wrong there, to be honest. It has been well documented that the CIA basically took part in funding radical islamist networks.

"The bin Laden network, I doubt if anybody knows it better than the CIA, since they were instrumental in helping construct it...

The U.S., along with Egypt, Pakistan, French intelligence, Saudi Arabian funding, and Israeli involvement, assembled a major army, a huge mercenary army, maybe 100,000 or more, and they drew from the most militant sectors they could find, which happened to be radical Islamists, what are called here Islamic fundamentalists, from all over, most of them not from Afghanistan. They’re called Afghanis, but like bin Laden, they come from elsewhere. Bin Laden joined very quickly. He was involved in the funding networks, which probably are the ones which still exist. They were trained, armed, organized by the CIA, Pakistan, Egypt, and others to fight a holy war against the Russians."

Chomsky Interview: The United States is a Leading Terrorist State - Monthly Review

Other than that, you're getting worked up over the name of a book and a couple of organizations which you think are taking over the U.S.

None of his comments really have anything to do with the community center's existence in New York. In fact he apparently wants to to improve relations between muslims and the west. It's the U.S. that seems to be ruining this opportunity in defiance of even their own moral constitution.

Sorry, if anything is being done in bad taste, it's not the construction of this building. The defiance of the constitution by Americans for the sake of holding back the exercise of peaceful citizens is way worse.

 

[CDNBear]

I see nothing really wrong there, to be honest. It has been well documented that the CIA basically funded islamic terrorism.

Ya, I know...but that's hardly the bulk of it.

Other than that, you're getting worked up over the name of a book and a couple of organizations which you think are taking over the U.S.

Ah yes, here comes the personalization, I must be getting worked up. I can't be just putting forth my opinion for simple discussion, I must be worked up over all this.

None of his comments really have anything to do with the community center's existence in New York. In fact he apparently wants to to improve relations between muslims and the west. It's the U.S. that seems to be ruining this opportunity in defiance of even their own moral constitution.

Ya, like i said before, out of one side of his face...

Sorry, if anything is being done in bad taste, it's not the construction of this building.

Because you see it differently then I do. I'm OK with that. I don't think you're getting worked up. I think you see it differently, and have ignored certain facts that didn't sit well with you.

The defiance of the constitution by Americans for the sake of holding back the exercise of peaceful citizens is way worse.

:roll: No one has said they can't practice their religion. If you actually think that, you set a precedent, for all religious groups to force their will over building codes around the US.

Can you please show me where in the Constitution, it states the freedom to build a religious center anywhere you wish?

The manipulation of the premise of the Constitution, is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

 

[mentalfloss]

Can you please show me where in the Constitution, it states the freedom to build a religious center anywhere you wish?

It can be built on private property in accordance with local laws. If those local laws conflict with the constitution, I guess there's a problem. If they legitimately cannot build the mosque based on current legislation, then they can't built it.

But if that was the case, then I don't think we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm no expert on the legalities - all I'm going is based on the constitution, which even Obama says entitles them to plant it there. I don't think he would make such a public statement if it could be easily falsified.

 

[CDNBear]

It can be built on private property in accordance with local laws.

Full Stop.

If those local laws conflict with the constitution, I guess there's a problem.

I would tend to agree.

But if that was the case, then I don't think we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm no expert on the legalities - all I'm going is based on the constitution, which even Obama says entitles them to plant it there. I don't think he would make such a public statement if it could be easily falsified.

But that's not what you said, I'll admit to being a little nitpickidy though.

It all comes back to commonsense and class.

Hey, on a side note, I like Honda dirt bikes. What dirt bikes do you like?

 

[mentalfloss]

Full Stop.

Okay, so is there some clarity to this issue? Do the existing NYC local laws show that the community center cannot be built for whatever reason? And does that reason coincide with the constitution itself? Or is it okay if it conflicts with the constitution?

 

[CDNBear]

Okay, so is there some clarity to this issue?

Which part?

Do the existing local NYC show that the community center cannot be built for whatever reason?

They could have, if the historical commission had said so.

And does that reason coincide with the constitution itself?

The only way to invoke the Constitution is, if it was an attempt to prevent the freedom of religion. Building codes, historical commissions don't do that. They say what can be built and where.

Or is it okay if it conflicts with the constitution?

If the building codes said it couldn't be built there, or the historical commission said they could rebuild the building to reflect anything but the original facade? No, it doesn't conflict with the Constitution.

If the authorities said, no, because it is Islamic, that would be in conflict with the Constitution.

So, again I ask. What kind of dirt bikes do you like?