Obama in favor of Ground Zero Mosque
Jason
a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the Ground Zero
Mosque.
Charles Krauthammer
August 13, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Sacrilege at Ground Zero
Even Mayor Bloomberg acknowledges that the rules are different when it
comes to sacred places.
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the
miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the
presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by
the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent
(Auschwitz).
When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it
belongs to those who suffered and died there ‹ and that such ownership
obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place,
never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized, or misappropriated.
Thatąs why Disneyąs early ą90s proposal to build an American history theme
park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition fearing
vulgarization of the Civil War (and wiser than me; at the time I obtusely
saw little harm in the venture). Itąs why the commercial viewing tower
built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park
Service. Itąs why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the
idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.
And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent
they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their
heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them
a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. However
pure your voice, better to let silence reign.
Even New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the
proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers
on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers łto show some special
sensitivity to the situation.˛ Yet, as Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the
government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business,
shape their message, or show łspecial sensitivity˛ to anyone about
anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those
he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely, that Ground Zero is indeed
unlike any other place and, therefore, unique criteria govern what can be
done there.
Bloombergąs implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled
by łinsensitive˛ Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he
would not support its construction.
But then, why not? By the mayorąs own expansive view of religious freedom,
by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a
practical matter, thereąs no guarantee this couldnąt happen in the future.
Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that
the mosque wonąt one day hire an Anwar al-Awlaki ‹ spiritual mentor to the
Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the
Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
An Awlaki preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Awlaki preaching
at Ground Zero is a sacrilege.
Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the
greatest mass murder in American history ‹ perpetrated by Muslims of a
particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name
they killed.
Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no
more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi ‹ yet despite
contemporary Germanyąs innocence, no German of good will would even think
of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Raufąs
proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy łan accessory to the
crime˛ of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist
organization, replied, łIąm not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism
is a very complex question.˛
America is a free country where you can build whatever you want ‹ but not
anywhere. Thatąs why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school,
no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house
doesnąt meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more
profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No
commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz ‹ and no mosque
at Ground Zero.
Build it anywhere but there.
The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque
elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Raufąs ostensible
hope for the structure, would accept the offer.
‹ Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.
James Dale Guckert
> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of
...property rights.
--
JDG
David Canzi
where this Islamic center will be. It appears it will be at
the northeast corner of W Broadway and Park Pl, on the site of
the Amish market and the former coat factory just to the east.
I couldn't tell whether it will be visible by looking up W Broadway
from some part of Ground Zero. It will be taller than most of the
buildings between it and Ground Zero, but I couldn't tell whether
it will be tall enough to be seen over their tops from Ground Zero.
It will be visible from a distance to people looking toward Ground
Zero from tall buildings, and possibly also in skyline photos taken
from the Hudson River.
With this, and with more and more women wearing hijab, it's
clear that Muslims are working to make Islam's presence in the
West more visible. They are sending us a message: "We're here.
We're Muslim. Get used to it."
--
David Canzi | "If the human mind were simple enough for us to understand,
| we would be too simple-minded to understand it." -- anonymous
Jason
dmc...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) wrote:
> I've done some exploring in Google street view to find out
> where this Islamic center will be. It appears it will be at
> the northeast corner of W Broadway and Park Pl, on the site of
> the Amish market and the former coat factory just to the east.
> I couldn't tell whether it will be visible by looking up W Broadway
> from some part of Ground Zero. It will be taller than most of the
> buildings between it and Ground Zero, but I couldn't tell whether
> it will be tall enough to be seen over their tops from Ground Zero.
> It will be visible from a distance to people looking toward Ground
> Zero from tall buildings, and possibly also in skyline photos taken
> from the Hudson River.
>
> With this, and with more and more women wearing hijab, it's
> clear that Muslims are working to make Islam's presence in the
> West more visible. They are sending us a message: "We're here.
> We're Muslim. Get used to it."
Most of the people in New York have no problems with the Muslims wanting
to build another mosque. However, they do NOT want the huge mosque built
near Ground Zero.
Jason
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
Cities have control over property rights. For example, in my city, they
will not allow bars or stores that sell alcohol within 5 miles of a
school. The city that I live in passed a law that made it illegal for any
stores that sells sex devices and sex videos to be located within the
city.
Jimbo
> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims building
> a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the Ground Zero
> Mosque.
The hyperbole is astounding. The thing will be a good four or five
blocks away from where the Trade Towers stood, not at "ground zero".
Jimbo
> In article <i46og6$i2...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
>
> <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
> > On 8/14/10 8:42 AM, Jason wrote:
> > > Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of
>
> > ...property rights.
>
> Cities have control over property rights.
Within certain limits they do. However, that limits does not extend
to discrimination based on religious concerns. If the Mosque meets
the requirements of the local zoning laws, the city does not have the
right to tell them they cannot build there. There are already four or
five churces in that general area.
Doc Smartass
news:Jason-14081...@67-150-125-73.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims
> building a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the
> Ground Zero Mosque.
It's not a mosque. It's a community center, like a "YMCA." It's not even
visible from the WTC site (2 blocks away), it's in an old Burlington Coat
Factory building, and this is all nothing more than the professional
hysterics freaking out for an election year.
long-ass link:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/james_standish/2010/
08/the_great_ground_zero_mosque_hoax.html
short-ass link:
http://tinyurl.com/2v6cjlv
James Standish
The great "Ground Zero mosque" hoax
Anyone paying attention the last couple of weeks has heard multiple
reports about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It's been labeled a
"victory mosque", described as towering over the memorial to the victims
of 9/11, and as being the pet project of a terrorist-sympathizing, Muslim
imam. All of this would be cause for Americans to get upset, and no
surprise, polls show we are.
But what if what we're being told are gross distortions mixed with bold
faced lies?
Three simple fact checks help put the flap in context:
1) There is no "Ground Zero" mosque
If you take a minute to Google map the address of the supposed "ground
zero" mosque, 45-47 Park Place, you'll find the proposed site is on a
small city street buried in the middle of the block. It is separated by
two full city blocks of towering buildings from the World Trade Center
site. While the entire lower Manhattan might be considered "Ground Zero",
the site of the mosque is separated visually and physically from the
World Trade Center site. No one visiting the World Trade Center site will
see it - unless they take a wrong turn on the way.
2) There is no "Victory" Mosque
The stated goal behind building the Muslim center in lower Manhattan is
to recapture the spirit of mutual respect between Judaism, Christianity
and Islam that existed in Cordoba, Spain, from 700 - 1200 AD. While
Europe was trapped in the Dark Ages, marked by bloody religious
repression, Cordoba thrived as a commercial and cultural center with what
was, for the time, a high level of religious freedom. For example, in the
10th Century, Cordoba became the intellectual capital for Jews worldwide.
The stated point of the project is creating a world where Jews,
Christians and Muslims connect again in a way that builds mutual
understanding and respect. This is precisely the opposite goal of the
9/11 terrorists.
3) There is no Terror-Loving Imam Behind the Mosque
The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is reported to have good
relations with the Jewish community and has strongly condemned terrorism.
He is precisely the kind of Imam that violent Islamic radicals despise
the most. He has been lambasted in some quarters in the US for stating
that American support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Middle-east
motivated the 9/11 terrorists. While the precise motivation of the
terrorists may be subject for debate, his analysis can only dismissed
blithely by those unfamiliar with the deplorable practices of American
"allies" in Middle-east ranging from the Saudi regime to Egyptian
government. But this misses the point; we don't have to agree with his
analysis or the way he expressed himself to agree that in a free society,
unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they have the same rights
as anyone else to build and operate a house of worship.
Target the Saudi Government - Not Americans
Not only are the "facts" that have been widely reported gross
distortions, but the arguments for banning the mosque are fatally flawed.
Some have argued that America should not allow the mosque to be built
until Saudi Arabia permits the building of churches. As someone on the
forefront of pressing for full religious freedom in all nations -
including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan - for almost a decade, I
strongly support the view that Saudi Arabia must abide by its
international commitment and permit people not only to build the houses
of worship they choose, but to speak freely about their religious
convictions and to change their faith should they so choose. But this
misses a key point. If we want this to happen, we should target the Saudi
regime, not Americans like Imam Rauf.
Specifically, the politicians currently railing against Imam Rauf, should
rather use their influence and power to place conditions on the vast
economic and security cooperation between the US and Saudi Arabia. The
conditions should require the Saudis to end their egregious human rights
violations - and most specifically, their abuse of religious minorities
including Christians and Shia Muslims.
Don't Give the Government Power to Ban our Houses of Worship
But there is a second disconnect. Americans have the right to build our
houses of worship wherever we choose, as long as we lawfully purchase the
land and build to code. Indeed, in 1998 the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act was passed to ensure this right is robustly
protected. Do we really want to give the government the right to pick and
choose which religions get to build where? Do we want Evangelicals banned
from building new churches in neighborhoods where they are an unpopular
minority? Do they want the majority to be able to decide where Mormon
churches can be built, or Synagogues or Adventist Churches, or Catholic?
We are all minorities somewhere in this country. Do we want the majority
to be able to squelch our plans to build a house of worship?
Where is the fear of intrusive government when we need it? Where is the
dedication to the First Freedom found in our Constitution when it really
matters?
Stop Damaging American Security
The so called "Ground Zero" controversy has no doubt effectively raised
the profile and filled the coffers of the politicians and advocacy
organizations misleading the public. Scapegoating unpopular minorities is
generally an effective way to gain power and influence. But it comes at a
price. In this case, the price is not only the integrity and credibility
of the individuals and organizations that raced to jump on this
bandwagon. It is deeper and it is broader. This controversy has done much
to stoke hatred against American Muslims at home and in the process, has
made peaceful Muslims around the world doubt our commitment to equality
and liberty. In so doing, these attacks on American Muslims gives fuel to
violent Islamic radicals.
The politicians and NGOs that have stoked the "ground zero" mosque hoax
should be seen for what they are - security charlatans. Their intolerance
weakens our society and our allies, while strengthening our enemies.
Conclusion
Even if we are willing to abandon our constitutional right to freedom of
religion, even if we are willing empower the government to pick and
choose between religions, even if our conscience doesn't bother us when
inflammatory remarks are made about a vulnerable minority, even if all
this is true, it is indisputable that America's self interest at home and
abroad lays in supporting peaceful voices in the Muslim community, not
employing distortions to whip up the fires of prejudice against them.
By James Standish | August 13, 2010; 12:14 PM ET
</end>
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939
Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity: Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut!
James Dale Guckert
There is some sever irony in hearing purportedly conservative pundits
getting all weepy and touchy-feely about this project... until it
becomes clear that this is yet another lucrative means of filling out
the 24-hour news cycle with incoherent, selective neopatriotic blather.
These folks, who normally argue in favor of property rights when issues
like eminent domain and the right to possession of firearms in the home
come up, all of a sudden reach for softhearted rhetoric (have you read
Palin's tear-jerking twit--er, tweet?) and talk about potential
psychological harm, and whether or not one can see the center from
"Ground Zero."
Obama's statement was simply that the owners of the land have the right
to build the center. The TV loons and political hacks twisted that into
support for the actual building of the center, and Netkooks like Jason
lapped it up and spewed it forth on alt.atheism.
--
JDG
Father Haskell
freedom of religion.
Jason
<gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
I hope they build it many miles from Ground Zero. If they are able to
build it near ground Zero--the Muslims will consider it to be a victory
against their biggest enemy.
Jason
<c2a8b6a1-9c22-42b2...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Jimbo
<ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
It should be built eight or nine blocks from ground zero.
Jason
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
I have no problems with them building a huge mosque but a poll indicated
that most New Yorkers believe the huge mosque should be built in another
part of New York. I agree with them--A huge mosque should not be built
near ground zero.
Father Haskell
>
> <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 11:42=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims building
> > > a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the Ground Zero
> > > Mosque.
>
> > The hyperbole is astounding. The thing will be a good four or five
> > blocks away from where the Trade Towers stood, not at "ground zero".
>
> It should be built eight or nine blocks from ground zero.
They already own the property where it is.
James Dale Guckert
> A huge mosque should not be built
> near ground zero.
Thank you for switching the subject, thereby backhandedly withdrawing
your allegation that Obama spoke in support of the project.
--
JDG
James Dale Guckert
And the project plan predates the 2001 attacks.
--
JDG
James Dale Guckert
There are many mosques already within that radius. Should they be
dismantled?
(Just trying to take the temperature of your hatred.)
--
JDG
Dakota
> In article<i46tt7$e60$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/10 12:57 PM, Jason wrote:
>>> In article<i46og6$i22$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
>>> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/10 8:42 AM, Jason wrote:
>>>>> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of
>>>>
>>>> ...property rights.
>>>
>>> Cities have control over property rights. For example, in my city, they
>>> will not allow bars or stores that sell alcohol within 5 miles of a
>>> school. The city that I live in passed a law that made it illegal for any
>>> stores that sells sex devices and sex videos to be located within the
>>> city.
>
Your city has what it considers to be a compelling, secular reason that
those establishments should be restricted. There is no secular reason
for denying a building permit to those who wish to build the mosque.
Denial based on religion is unconstitutional.
>
>> There is some sever irony in hearing purportedly conservative pundits
>> getting all weepy and touchy-feely about this project... until it
>> becomes clear that this is yet another lucrative means of filling out
>> the 24-hour news cycle with incoherent, selective neopatriotic blather.
>>
>> These folks, who normally argue in favor of property rights when issues
>> like eminent domain and the right to possession of firearms in the home
>> come up, all of a sudden reach for softhearted rhetoric (have you read
>> Palin's tear-jerking twit--er, tweet?) and talk about potential
>> psychological harm, and whether or not one can see the center from
>> "Ground Zero."
>>
>> Obama's statement was simply that the owners of the land have the right
>> to build the center. The TV loons and political hacks twisted that into
>> support for the actual building of the center, and Netkooks like Jason
>> lapped it up and spewed it forth on alt.atheism.
>
> I have no problems with them building a huge mosque but a poll indicated
> that most New Yorkers believe the huge mosque should be built in another
> part of New York. I agree with them--A huge mosque should not be built
> near ground zero.
>
The Constitution trumps the polls. Even if every New Yorker believed
that the mosque should be build elsewhere, a majority cannot take away
the constitutional rights of those they oppose.
James Dale Guckert
In an attempt to be fair:
I don't think Jason is saying that the law should prevent the center to
be built. I think he's taking the weepy Sarah Palin approach, appealing
to our deep, abiding concern for the tender self-esteems of Islamophobes
everywhere.
--
JDG
Father Haskell
> In article <Xns9DD49BE11241Easkifyouwan...@216.196.121.131>, Doc Smartass
>
>
>
>
>
> <gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> >news:Jason-14081...@67-150-125-73.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>
> > > Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims
> > > building a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the
> > > Ground Zero Mosque.
>
> > It's not a mosque. It's a community center, like a "YMCA." It's not even
> > visible from the WTC site (2 blocks away), it's in an old Burlington Coat
> > Factory building, and this is all nothing more than the professional
> > hysterics freaking out for an election year.
>
> > long-ass link:
>
> - Show quoted text -
You don't think defeating the Constitution would be the
first step in another victory?
Don Martin
And one set of delusional idiots banded together always tends to beget another.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
DanielSan
> I hope they build it many miles from Ground Zero. If they are able to
> build it near ground Zero--the Muslims will consider it to be a victory
> against their biggest enemy.
Actually, not allowing the building of a "mosque" near Ground Zero would
be considered a victory for the "Islamofascist" terrorists.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
------------------------------
“The Old Testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism,
disbelief-call it what you will-than any book ever written; it has
emptied more churches than all the counterattractions of cinema, motor
bicycle and golf course." -- a.a. milne
Father Haskell
>
> - Show quoted text -
Speaking of which, if the "Freedom Tower" is ever built,
having a risk of it toppling over onto islamic ground might
well be cheap protection from another attack.
Doc Smartass
news:Jason-14081...@67-150-171-43.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> In article <Xns9DD49BE11241...@216.196.121.131>, Doc
> Smartass <gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
>> news:Jason-14081...@67-150-125-73.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>>
>> > Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims
>> > building a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the
>> > Ground Zero Mosque.
>>
>> It's not a mosque. It's a community center, like a "YMCA." It's not
>> even visible from the WTC site (2 blocks away), it's in an old
>> Burlington Coat Factory building, and this is all nothing more than
>> the professional hysterics freaking out for an election year.
>>
>> long-ass link:
>> http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/james_standish/20
>> 10/ 08/the_great_ground_zero_mosque_hoax.html
>>
>> short-ass link:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2v6cjlv
>>
>> James Standish
>> The great "Ground Zero mosque" hoax
<snip>
>> By James Standish | August 13, 2010; 12:14 PM ET
>>
>> </end>
>
> I hope they build it many miles from Ground Zero. If they are able to
> build it near ground Zero--the Muslims will consider it to be a
> victory against their biggest enemy.
Did you bother to READ the above, or did you just full-quote it to waste
my bandwidth?
His second point, apparently ignored by you:
>> 2) There is no "Victory" Mosque
>>
>> The stated goal behind building the Muslim center in lower Manhattan
>> is to recapture the spirit of mutual respect between Judaism,
>> Christianity and Islam that existed in Cordoba, Spain, from 700 -
>> 1200 AD. While Europe was trapped in the Dark Ages, marked by bloody
>> religious repression, Cordoba thrived as a commercial and cultural
>> center with what was, for the time, a high level of religious
>> freedom. For example, in the 10th Century, Cordoba became the
>> intellectual capital for Jews worldwide. The stated point of the
>> project is creating a world where Jews, Christians and Muslims
>> connect again in a way that builds mutual understanding and respect.
>> This is precisely the opposite goal of the 9/11 terrorists.
--
Jason
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
Obama (today) spoke in favor of the project--the story was in today's newspaper.
Jason
<31621767-98fe-4967...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 7:21=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article <Xns9DD49BE11241Easkifyouwan...@216.196.121.131>, Doc Smartass
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> > >news:Jason-14081...@67-150-125-73.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> >
> > > > Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims
> > > > building a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the
> > > > Ground Zero Mosque.
> >
> > > It's not a mosque. It's a community center, like a "YMCA." It's not eve=
> n
> > > visible from the WTC site (2 blocks away), it's in an old Burlington Co=
> at
> > > Factory building, and this is all nothing more than the professional
> > > hysterics freaking out for an election year.
> >
> > > long-ass link:
> > >http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/james_standish/2...
> > > 08/the_great_ground_zero_mosque_hoax.html
> >
> > > short-ass link:
> > >http://tinyurl.com/2v6cjlv
> >
> > > James Standish
> > > The great "Ground Zero mosque" hoax
> >
> > > Anyone paying attention the last couple of weeks has heard multiple
> > > reports about plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero. It's been labeled=
> a
> > > "victory mosque", described as towering over the memorial to the victim=
> s
> > > of 9/11, and as being the pet project of a terrorist-sympathizing, Musl=
> im
> > > imam. All of this would be cause for Americans to get upset, and no
> > > surprise, polls show we are.
> >
> > > But what if what we're being told are gross distortions mixed with bold
> > > faced lies?
> >
> > > Three simple fact checks help put the flap in context:
> >
> > > 1) There is no "Ground Zero" mosque
> >
> > > If you take a minute to Google map the address of the supposed "ground
> > > zero" mosque, 45-47 Park Place, you'll find the proposed site is on a
> > > small city street buried in the middle of the block. It is separated by
> > > two full city blocks of towering buildings from the World Trade Center
> > > site. While the entire lower Manhattan might be considered "Ground Zero=
> ",
> > > the site of the mosque is separated visually and physically from the
> > > World Trade Center site. No one visiting the World Trade Center site wi=
> ll
> > > see it - unless they take a wrong turn on the way.
> >
> > > 2) There is no "Victory" Mosque
> >
> > > The stated goal behind building the Muslim center in lower Manhattan is
> > > to recapture the spirit of mutual respect between Judaism, Christianity
> > > and Islam that existed in Cordoba, Spain, from 700 - 1200 AD. While
> > > Europe was trapped in the Dark Ages, marked by bloody religious
> > > repression, Cordoba thrived as a commercial and cultural center with wh=
> at
> > > was, for the time, a high level of religious freedom. For example, in t=
> he
> > > 10th Century, Cordoba became the intellectual capital for Jews worldwid=
> e.
> > > The stated point of the project is creating a world where Jews,
> > > Christians and Muslims connect again in a way that builds mutual
> > > understanding and respect. This is precisely the opposite goal of the
> > > 9/11 terrorists.
> >
> > > 3) There is no Terror-Loving Imam Behind the Mosque
> >
> > > The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is reported to have good
> > > relations with the Jewish community and has strongly condemned terroris=
> m.
> > > He is precisely the kind of Imam that violent Islamic radicals despise
> > > the most. He has been lambasted in some quarters in the US for stating
> > > that American support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Middle-eas=
> t
> > > motivated the 9/11 terrorists. While the precise motivation of the
> > > terrorists may be subject for debate, his analysis can only dismissed
> > > blithely by those unfamiliar with the deplorable practices of American
> > > "allies" in Middle-east ranging from the Saudi regime to Egyptian
> > > government. But this misses the point; we don't have to agree with his
> > > analysis or the way he expressed himself to agree that in a free societ=
> y,
> > > unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they have the same righ=
> ts
> > > as anyone else to build and operate a house of worship.
> >
> > > Target the Saudi Government - Not Americans
> >
> > > Not only are the "facts" that have been widely reported gross
> > > distortions, but the arguments for banning the mosque are fatally flawe=
> d.
> > > Some have argued that America should not allow the mosque to be built
> > > until Saudi Arabia permits the building of churches. As someone on the
> > > forefront of pressing for full religious freedom in all nations -
> > > including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan - for almost a decade, I
> > > strongly support the view that Saudi Arabia must abide by its
> > > international commitment and permit people not only to build the houses
> > > of worship they choose, but to speak freely about their religious
> > > convictions and to change their faith should they so choose. But this
> > > misses a key point. If we want this to happen, we should target the Sau=
> di
> > > regime, not Americans like Imam Rauf.
> >
> > > Specifically, the politicians currently railing against Imam Rauf, shou=
> ld
> > > rather use their influence and power to place conditions on the vast
> > > economic and security cooperation between the US and Saudi Arabia. The
> > > conditions should require the Saudis to end their egregious human right=
> s
> > > violations - and most specifically, their abuse of religious minorities
> > > including Christians and Shia Muslims.
> >
> > > Don't Give the Government Power to Ban our Houses of Worship
> >
> > > But there is a second disconnect. Americans have the right to build our
> > > houses of worship wherever we choose, as long as we lawfully purchase t=
> he
> > > land and build to code. Indeed, in 1998 the Religious Land Use and
> > > Institutionalized Persons Act was passed to ensure this right is robust=
> ly
> > > protected. Do we really want to give the government the right to pick a=
> nd
> > > choose which religions get to build where? Do we want Evangelicals bann=
> ed
> > > from building new churches in neighborhoods where they are an unpopular
> > > minority? Do they want the majority to be able to decide where Mormon
> > > churches can be built, or Synagogues or Adventist Churches, or Catholic=
> ?
> > > We are all minorities somewhere in this country. Do we want the majorit=
> y
> > > to be able to squelch our plans to build a house of worship?
> >
> > > Where is the fear of intrusive government when we need it? Where is the
> > > dedication to the First Freedom found in our Constitution when it reall=
> y
> > > matters?
> >
> > > Stop Damaging American Security
> >
> > > The so called "Ground Zero" controversy has no doubt effectively raised
> > > the profile and filled the coffers of the politicians and advocacy
> > > organizations misleading the public. Scapegoating unpopular minorities =
> is
> > > generally an effective way to gain power and influence. But it comes at=
> a
> > > price. In this case, the price is not only the integrity and credibilit=
> y
> > > of the individuals and organizations that raced to jump on this
> > > bandwagon. It is deeper and it is broader. This controversy has done mu=
> ch
> > > to stoke hatred against American Muslims at home and in the process, ha=
> s
> > > made peaceful Muslims around the world doubt our commitment to equality
> > > and liberty. In so doing, these attacks on American Muslims gives fuel =
> to
> > > violent Islamic radicals.
> >
> > > The politicians and NGOs that have stoked the "ground zero" mosque hoax
> > > should be seen for what they are - security charlatans. Their intoleran=
> ce
> > > weakens our society and our allies, while strengthening our enemies.
> >
> > > Conclusion
> >
> > > Even if we are willing to abandon our constitutional right to freedom o=
> f
> > > religion, even if we are willing empower the government to pick and
> > > choose between religions, even if our conscience doesn't bother us when
> > > inflammatory remarks are made about a vulnerable minority, even if all
> > > this is true, it is indisputable that America's self interest at home a=
> nd
> > > abroad lays in supporting peaceful voices in the Muslim community, not
> > > employing distortions to whip up the fires of prejudice against them.
> >
> > > By James Standish =A0| =A0August 13, 2010; 12:14 PM ET
> >
> > > </end>
> >
> > I hope they build it many miles from Ground Zero. If they are able to
> > build it near ground Zero--the Muslims will consider it to be a victory
> > against their biggest enemy.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You don't think defeating the Constitution would be the
> first step in another victory?
I am a supporter of the constitution. City officials have control of
zoning laws and property laws.
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On 8/14/2010 4:21 PM, Jason wrote:
>
> > I hope they build it many miles from Ground Zero. If they are able to
> > build it near ground Zero--the Muslims will consider it to be a victory
> > against their biggest enemy.
>
> Actually, not allowing the building of a "mosque" near Ground Zero would
> be considered a victory for the "Islamofascist" terrorists.
If the mosque is built in another part of New York--it will be a win for
the citizens of NY that oppose a mosque near ground zeor and a win for the
Muslims since they will still get to build their huge mosque.
Jason
<ma...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
Do you think that the Christians should be able to build a church in the
middle of yankee stadium? The point is that cities can control where
buildings are built.
Jason
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
I believe the huge mosque should be built but NOT near ground zero. The
majority of the citizens of NY are in agreement with me on this issue.
DanielSan
No. He spoke in favor of an Islamic Center. Do you know the
difference? (No, you don't.)
Jason
<2e965da4-f6ce-42ff...@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 7:47=A0pm, James Dale Guckert
> <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
> > On 8/14/10 4:28 PM, Father Haskell wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 14, 7:22 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >> In article
> > >> <c2a8b6a1-9c22-42b2-b034-f0cf3b760...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, J=
> imbo
> >
> > >> <ckdbig...@gmail.com> =A0wrote:
> > >>> On Aug 14, 11:42=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >>>> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims bui=
> lding
> > >>>> a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the Ground Zero
> > >>>> Mosque.
> >
> > >>> The hyperbole is astounding. The thing will be a good four or five
> > >>> blocks away from where the Trade Towers stood, not at "ground zero".
> >
> > >> It should be built eight or nine blocks from ground zero.
> >
> > > They already own the property where it is.
> >
> > And the project plan predates the 2001 attacks.
> >
> > --
> > JDG- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Speaking of which, if the "Freedom Tower" is ever built,
> having a risk of it toppling over onto islamic ground might
> well be cheap protection from another attack.
An excellent point that I had not thought of.
DanielSan
But they can't deny zoning based solely on religion. That's not allowed
by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Jason
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
No--leave them alone. As far as I know, they are NOT huge mosques. The
proposed mosque is huge in size. I believe they were built prior to 9-11.
DanielSan
So, you want the "Islamofascist" terrorists to win?
DanielSan
> In article<6I6dnZa3WK3...@giganews.com>, Dakota
There's already a building there owned by a private company (Yankee
Global Enterprises LLC). Try again.
DanielSan
> In article<i47emg$3bo$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
You haven't given a good reason why a "mosque" (which is not being
built) shouldn't be put there.
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On 8/14/2010 7:57 PM, Jason wrote:
> > In article
> > <31621767-98fe-4967...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Father Haskell<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> You don't think defeating the Constitution would be the
> >> first step in another victory?
> >
> > I am a supporter of the constitution. City officials have control of
> > zoning laws and property laws.
> >
> >
>
> But they can't deny zoning based solely on religion. That's not allowed
> by the Constitution of the United States of America.
They do it all of the time. There was a story in the newspaper today about
a city in Texas that ordered some sort of eastern religion to tear down
their building since it had been built in a community that prohibited
anything but houses in that area. They built it and it ended up in court.
The judge decided to order them to tear it down since it violated zoning
laws.
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On 8/14/2010 7:55 PM, Jason wrote:
> > In article<i479tr$f9s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
> > <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/14/10 4:27 PM, Jason wrote:
> >>> A huge mosque should not be built
> >>> near ground zero.
> >>
> >> Thank you for switching the subject, thereby backhandedly withdrawing
> >> your allegation that Obama spoke in support of the project.
> >
> > Obama (today) spoke in favor of the project--the story was in today's
newspaper.
>
> No. He spoke in favor of an Islamic Center. Do you know the
> difference? (No, you don't.)
The Islamic Center has a mosque inside of it.
DanielSan
> In article<tJmdnV3r5O-xxPrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
Right. It was zoned for residential. The religious building was not a
residential building so it couldn't be built there, not because it was
religious.
Try again.
(You're not that good at this debating thing, are you?)
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On 8/14/2010 7:59 PM, Jason wrote:
> > In article<vu-dnfPH2MrsovrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
> > <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/14/2010 4:21 PM, Jason wrote:
> >>
> >>> I hope they build it many miles from Ground Zero. If they are able to
> >>> build it near ground Zero--the Muslims will consider it to be a victory
> >>> against their biggest enemy.
> >>
> >> Actually, not allowing the building of a "mosque" near Ground Zero would
> >> be considered a victory for the "Islamofascist" terrorists.
> >
> > If the mosque is built in another part of New York--it will be a win for
> > the citizens of NY that oppose a mosque near ground zeor and a win for the
> > Muslims since they will still get to build their huge mosque.
>
> So, you want the "Islamofascist" terrorists to win?
I want them to build the mosque in another section of New York and NOT
near ground zero. If the Muslims consider that to be a win--so be it.
DanielSan
> In article<tJmdnSLr5O97xfrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
[citation needed]
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
It's not in the middle of yankee stadium.
Father Haskell
Like hell, you are.
> City officials have control of
> zoning laws and property laws.- Hide quoted text -
DanielSan
> In article<tJmdnV_r5O-7x_rR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
Why do you want the "Islamofascist" terrorists to win?!
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Because it is an offense to the relatives and friends of the people that
died on 9-11. They took a poll of New Yorkers. Over half of the people in
New York have very strong feeling about 9-11. The poll indicated that
about 60% or more of New Yorkers don't want the mosque (or whatever it is
called) be built in another part of the city--not near ground zero. There
will be a mosque inside that huge building--that's why people call it a
mosque.
DanielSan
> In article<tJmdnV7r5O8Nx_rR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
What isn't? You asked if Christians should be able to build a church in
the middle of Yankee Stadium. They can't because there's already a
private business there.
tom....@gmail.com
> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims building
> a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the Ground Zero
> Mosque.
>
>
> August 13, 2010 12:00 A.M.
> Sacrilege at Ground Zero
>
> Even Mayor Bloomberg acknowledges that the rules are different when it
> comes to sacred places.
>
> A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the
> miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the
> presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by
> the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent
> (Auschwitz).
>
> When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it
> belongs to those who suffered and died there ‹ and that such ownership
> obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place,
> never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized, or misappropriated.
>
> That¹s why Disney¹s early ¹90s proposal to build an American history theme
> park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition fearing
> vulgarization of the Civil War (and wiser than me; at the time I obtusely
> saw little harm in the venture). It¹s why the commercial viewing tower
> built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park
> Service. It¹s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the
> idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.
>
> And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent
> they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their
> heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them
> a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. However
> pure your voice, better to let silence reign.
>
> Even New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the
> proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers
> on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers ³to show some special
> sensitivity to the situation.² Yet, as Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the
> government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business,
> shape their message, or show ³special sensitivity² to anyone about
> anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those
> he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely, that Ground Zero is indeed
> unlike any other place and, therefore, unique criteria govern what can be
> done there.
>
> Bloomberg¹s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled
> by ³insensitive² Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he
> would not support its construction.
>
> But then, why not? By the mayor¹s own expansive view of religious freedom,
> by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a
> practical matter, there¹s no guarantee this couldn¹t happen in the future.
> Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that
> the mosque won¹t one day hire an Anwar al-Awlaki ‹ spiritual mentor to the
> Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the
> Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
>
> An Awlaki preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Awlaki preaching
> at Ground Zero is a sacrilege.
>
> Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the
> greatest mass murder in American history ‹ perpetrated by Muslims of a
> particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name
> they killed.
>
> Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no
> more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi ‹ yet despite
> contemporary Germany¹s innocence, no German of good will would even think
> of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
>
> Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf¹s
> proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy ³an accessory to the
> crime² of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist
> organization, replied, ³I¹m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism
> is a very complex question.²
>
> America is a free country where you can build whatever you want ‹ but not
> anywhere. That¹s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school,
> no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house
> doesn¹t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
>
> These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more
> profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No
> commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz ‹ and no mosque
> at Ground Zero.
>
> Build it anywhere but there.
>
> The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque
> elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf¹s ostensible
> hope for the structure, would accept the offer.
> ‹ Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Obama just supported the right to build, not commenting on the
wisdom to build...huge difference...but on topic...rebuilding anything
on that site can be argued to be indecent...including another set of
commercial towers...
DanielSan
> In article<tJmdnVnr5O9Ax_rR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
Why?
> They took a poll of New Yorkers. Over half of the people in
> New York have very strong feeling about 9-11. The poll indicated that
> about 60% or more of New Yorkers don't want the mosque (or whatever it is
> called) be built in another part of the city--not near ground zero. There
> will be a mosque inside that huge building--that's why people call it a
> mosque.
There's a McDonald's in a Wal-Mart I went into. Therefore, that
building is a McDonald's?
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
That is 100% correct. Let's take religion out of it. Tell them to build
the huge mosque in another part of the city.
DanielSan
> Obama just supported the right to build, not commenting on the
> wisdom to build...huge difference...but on topic...rebuilding anything
> on that site can be argued to be indecent...including another set of
> commercial towers...
It's being put a couple blocks away from Ground Zero. Not ON Ground Zero.
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On 8/14/2010 8:21 PM, Jason wrote:
> > In article<tJmdnSLr5O97xfrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
> > <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/14/2010 7:55 PM, Jason wrote:
> >>> In article<i479tr$f9s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
> >>> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/14/10 4:27 PM, Jason wrote:
> >>>>> A huge mosque should not be built
> >>>>> near ground zero.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for switching the subject, thereby backhandedly withdrawing
> >>>> your allegation that Obama spoke in support of the project.
> >>>
> >>> Obama (today) spoke in favor of the project--the story was in today's
> > newspaper.
> >>
> >> No. He spoke in favor of an Islamic Center. Do you know the
> >> difference? (No, you don't.)
> >
> > The Islamic Center has a mosque inside of it.
>
> [citation needed]
Google Islamic Center--it will provide the details of what is inside the
center. The information was in today's newspaper.
DanielSan
For what reason? "People won't like it" is not a sufficient reason.
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On 8/14/2010 8:26 PM, Jason wrote:
> > In article<tJmdnV_r5O-7x_rR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
> > <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/14/2010 7:59 PM, Jason wrote:
> >>> In article<vu-dnfPH2MrsovrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
> >>> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/14/2010 4:21 PM, Jason wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I hope they build it many miles from Ground Zero. If they are able to
> >>>>> build it near ground Zero--the Muslims will consider it to be a victory
> >>>>> against their biggest enemy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, not allowing the building of a "mosque" near Ground Zero would
> >>>> be considered a victory for the "Islamofascist" terrorists.
> >>>
> >>> If the mosque is built in another part of New York--it will be a win for
> >>> the citizens of NY that oppose a mosque near ground zeor and a win for the
> >>> Muslims since they will still get to build their huge mosque.
> >>
> >> So, you want the "Islamofascist" terrorists to win?
> >
> > I want them to build the mosque in another section of New York and NOT
> > near ground zero. If the Muslims consider that to be a win--so be it.
>
> Why do you want the "Islamofascist" terrorists to win?!
The Muslims have a right to build mosques in America. It's part of the
constitution. Are you trying to trap me? Be honest.
James Dale Guckert
> In article<i479tr$f9s$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/10 4:27 PM, Jason wrote:
>>> A huge mosque should not be built
>>> near ground zero.
>>
>> Thank you for switching the subject, thereby backhandedly withdrawing
>> your allegation that Obama spoke in support of the project.
>
> Obama (today) spoke in favor of the project--the story was in today's newspaper.
The actual quotes from Obama were in support of the right to build the
center. That's different from support for the project itself. All you
and your ilk have so far are selective interpretations.
--
JDG
DanielSan
> In article<tJmdnU3r5O_1wvrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
You're the one that stated that Muslims don't have the right to build
mosques in America solely for the reason that people dislike the idea of
where it's going to be built.
If they deny the "mosque in an Islamic Center" to be built, then the
"Islamofascist" terrorists score a victory in their "They hate us for
our religion" meme. It'll be another rallying cry for them.
Now. Do you have a good reason not to have it put there?
James Dale Guckert
> Because it is an offense to the relatives and friends
Like I said: The weepy, touchy-feely approach that right-wingers tend to
make fun of.
--
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> Do you think that the Christians should be able to build a church in the
> middle of yankee stadium?
If the Yankees want to mess up their stadium...
--
JDG
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
The private business that you are referring to is not on the pitcher's mound.
James Dale Guckert
> In article<i47a1u$f9s$3...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/10 4:22 PM, Jason wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 14, 11:42=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>>> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims building
>>>>> a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the Ground Zero
>>>>> Mosque.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> blocks away from where the Trade Towers stood, not at "ground zero".
>>>
>>> It should be built eight or nine blocks from ground zero.
>>
>>
>> There are many mosques already within that radius. Should they be
>> dismantled?
>>
>> (Just trying to take the temperature of your hatred.)
>
> No--leave them alone. As far as I know,
Well that settles it. The "As far as I know" gambit always trumps facts.
> they are NOT huge mosques. The
> proposed mosque is huge in size. I believe they were built prior to 9-11.
So does the "I believe" gambit.
I bow to your superior logic.
--
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> That is 100% correct. Let's take religion out of it. Tell them to build
> the huge mosque in another part of the city.
So you want to re-zone the area because you hate Muslims?
--
JDG
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Good point--but I think that our leaders (including Bloomberg) should
listen to the citizens of New York. The leaders should do what the vast
majority of citizens of New York want them to do. The majority don't want
the mosque in that location so the Muslims should build it in another
location.
DanielSan
> In article<8uadnUfylfdU_frR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
The entire perimeter and everything in it is private property, including
the pitcher's mound. The company just allows limited access to the
paying public. Evidence: You can't simply walk into the locker rooms
without permission.
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Funny--great point. A leading columnist called it a mosque.
DanielSan
> In article<8uadnUPylfcK_PrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
Well, too bad. The zoning commission voted unanimously to allow it.
DanielSan
> In article<8uadnUbylfeW_PrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
Who gives a flying fuck?
Jason
<9285e749-f13a-4375...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"t...@noburn.net" <tom....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 11:42=C2=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims building
> > a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the Ground Zero
> > Mosque.
> >
> > Charles Krauthammer
> >
> > August 13, 2010 12:00 A.M.
> > Sacrilege at Ground Zero
> >
> > Even Mayor Bloomberg acknowledges that the rules are different when it
> > comes to sacred places.
> >
> > A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the
> > miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the
> > presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by
> > the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent
> > (Auschwitz).
> >
> > When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it
> > belongs to those who suffered and died there =E2=80=B9 and that such owne=
> rship
> > obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place,
> > never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized, or misappropriated.
> >
> > That=C2=B9s why Disney=C2=B9s early =C2=B990s proposal to build an Americ=
> an history theme
> > park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition fearing
> > vulgarization of the Civil War (and wiser than me; at the time I obtusely
> > saw little harm in the venture). It=C2=B9s why the commercial viewing tow=
> er
> > built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park
> > Service. It=C2=B9s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers=
> , the
> > idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.
> >
> > And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent
> > they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their
> > heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them
> > a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. Howeve=
> r
> > pure your voice, better to let silence reign.
> >
> > Even New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the
> > proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers
> > on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers =C2=B3to show some spec=
> ial
> > sensitivity to the situation.=C2=B2 Yet, as Rich Lowry pointedly noted, t=
> he
> > government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business=
> ,
> > shape their message, or show =C2=B3special sensitivity=C2=B2 to anyone ab=
> out
> > anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of thos=
> e
> > he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely, that Ground Zero is indeed
> > unlike any other place and, therefore, unique criteria govern what can be
> > done there.
> >
> > Bloomberg=C2=B9s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were contro=
> lled
> > by =C2=B3insensitive=C2=B2 Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrati=
> ng 9/11, he
> > would not support its construction.
> >
> > But then, why not? By the mayor=C2=B9s own expansive view of religious fr=
> eedom,
> > by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a
> > practical matter, there=C2=B9s no guarantee this couldn=C2=B9t happen in =
> the future.
> > Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that
> > the mosque won=C2=B9t one day hire an Anwar al-Awlaki =E2=80=B9 spiritual=
> mentor to the
> > Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and one-time imam at the
> > Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
> >
> > An Awlaki preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Awlaki preachin=
> g
> > at Ground Zero is a sacrilege.
> >
> > Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of th=
> e
> > greatest mass murder in American history =E2=80=B9 perpetrated by Muslims=
> of a
> > particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name
> > they killed.
> >
> > Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no
> > more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi =E2=80=B9 ye=
> t despite
> > contemporary Germany=C2=B9s innocence, no German of good will would even =
> think
> > of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
> >
> > Which makes you wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf=
> =C2=B9s
> > proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy =C2=B3an accessory to =
> the
> > crime=C2=B2 of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist
> > organization, replied, =C2=B3I=C2=B9m not a politician.=C2=A0.=C2=A0.=C2=
> =A0.=C2=A0The issue of terrorism
> > is a very complex question.=C2=B2
> >
> > America is a free country where you can build whatever you want =E2=80=B9=
> but not
> > anywhere. That=C2=B9s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a sch=
> ool,
> > no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house
> > doesn=C2=B9t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
> >
> > These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more
> > profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No
> > commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz =E2=80=B9 and n=
> o mosque
> > at Ground Zero.
> >
> > Build it anywhere but there.
> >
> > The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque
> > elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf=C2=B9s ostensib=
> le
> > hope for the structure, would accept the offer.
> > =E2=80=B9 Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.
>
> Obama just supported the right to build, not commenting on the
> wisdom to build...huge difference...but on topic...rebuilding anything
> on that site can be argued to be indecent...including another set of
> commercial towers...
Good point but I doubt that the New Yorkers would be upset if another set
of commercial towers were built. Keep in mind that Muslims were
responsible for the destruction of the twin towers.
James Dale Guckert
> I want them to
Who cares what you want?
Who cares what a handful of New Yorkers have to say in response to yet
another biased political poll? (Feel free to correct me if it's more
than just another sensationalistic TV-sourced push-poll. Those are far
too common these days.)
--
JDG
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On 8/14/2010 8:36 PM, t...@noburn.net wrote:
>
> > Obama just supported the right to build, not commenting on the
> > wisdom to build...huge difference...but on topic...rebuilding anything
> > on that site can be argued to be indecent...including another set of
> > commercial towers...
>
> It's being put a couple blocks away from Ground Zero. Not ON Ground Zero.
That is true--I should have stated "near ground zero" and not at or on
Ground Zero in my posts.
James Dale Guckert
> A leading columnist called it a mosque.
>
My cat called it a meow.
Who's more credible?
(Hint: four paws.)
--
JDG
Father Haskell
> In article <tJmdnSLr5O97xfrRnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > On 8/14/2010 7:55 PM, Jason wrote:
> > > In article<i479tr$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
> > > <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
> > >> On 8/14/10 4:27 PM, Jason wrote:
> > >>> near ground zero.
>
> > >> your allegation that Obama spoke in support of the project.
>
> > > Obama (today) spoke in favor of the project--the story was in today's
> newspaper.
>
> > difference? (No, you don't.)
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then the center is not a "huge mosque." It is a
huge community center with a small mosque inside
of it. And who really cares?
James Dale Guckert
> The leaders should do what the vast
> majority of citizens of New York want them to do.
Break the law?
--
JDG
James Dale Guckert
A long time ago.
And people are getting all riled up on TV this week.
What is this... sweeps?
--
JDG
Father Haskell
> In article <6I6dnZa3WK3fofrR4p2d...@giganews.com>, Dakota
>
>
>
>
>
> <ma...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > On Sat 8/14/10 18:27, Jason wrote:
> > > <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
> > >> On 8/14/10 12:57 PM, Jason wrote:
> > >>> In article<i46og6$i2...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
> > >>> <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> On 8/14/10 8:42 AM, Jason wrote:
> > >>>>> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of
>
> > > near ground zero.
>
> > The Constitution trumps the polls. Even if every New Yorker believed
> > that the mosque should be build elsewhere, a majority cannot take away
> > the constitutional rights of those they oppose.
>
> middle of yankee stadium? The point is that cities can control where
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure. First floor men's room, 2nd to the last stall from the end.
At least the bibles would find practical use.
James Dale Guckert
You're still spitting into the wind. The current howls of protest this
late in the game are foolish.
Was it O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity or Limbaugh whose "Outrage-O'-The-Day
Wheel" stopped on this story first, I wonder.
--
JDG
The Chief Instigator
> In article <tJmdnV3r5O-xxPrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
><dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2010 7:57 PM, Jason wrote:
>> > In article
>> > Father Haskell<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> You don't think defeating the Constitution would be the
>> >> first step in another victory?
>> >
>> > I am a supporter of the constitution. City officials have control of
>> > zoning laws and property laws.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> But they can't deny zoning based solely on religion. That's not allowed
>> by the Constitution of the United States of America.
>
> They do it all of the time. There was a story in the newspaper today about
> a city in Texas that ordered some sort of eastern religion to tear down
> their building since it had been built in a community that prohibited
> anything but houses in that area. They built it and it ended up in court.
> The judge decided to order them to tear it down since it violated zoning
> laws.
...and where in Texas is this supposed city? I live in Texas.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@prismnet.com) Houston, TX
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: The 2010-11 opener vs. TBA, October 8
Jason
<dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Because a majority of New Yorker do NOT want it put there--tell them to
put it somewhere else.
Olrik
I think it's simply symbolic.
It's islam using western freedom to slap said western freedom on its face.
Olrik
Indeed. And it's Obama's job to uphold the USA's Constitution, IIRC (I'm
not an american).
Olrik
> On 8/14/2010 8:28 PM, Jason wrote:
>> In article<tJmdnV7r5O8Nx_rR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
>> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/14/2010 8:01 PM, Jason wrote:
>>>> In article<6I6dnZa3WK3...@giganews.com>, Dakota
>>>> <ma...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat 8/14/10 18:27, Jason wrote:
>>>>>> Guckert
>>>>>> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/14/10 12:57 PM, Jason wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article<i46og6$i22$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale
>>>>>>>> Guckert
>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>> to build the center. The TV loons and political hacks twisted
>>>>>>> that into
>>>>>>> support for the actual building of the center, and Netkooks like
>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>> lapped it up and spewed it forth on alt.atheism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no problems with them building a huge mosque but a poll
>>>>>> indicated
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> part of New York. I agree with them--A huge mosque should not be
>>>>>> built
>>>>>> near ground zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Constitution trumps the polls. Even if every New Yorker believed
>>>>> that the mosque should be build elsewhere, a majority cannot take away
>>>>> the constitutional rights of those they oppose.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that the Christians should be able to build a church in
>>>> the
>>>> middle of yankee stadium? The point is that cities can control where
>>>
>>> There's already a building there owned by a private company (Yankee
>>> Global Enterprises LLC). Try again.
>>
>> It's not in the middle of yankee stadium.
>
> What isn't? You asked if Christians should be able to build a church in
> the middle of Yankee Stadium. They can't because there's already a
> private business there.
I think Jason meant to say that there are zoning laws already in place
to prevent, for example, bars or sex shops to be near schools, that sort
of thing.
Olrik
> On Aug 14, 7:47 pm, James Dale Guckert
> <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>> On 8/14/10 4:28 PM, Father Haskell wrote:>>>> <c2a8b6a1-9c22-42b2-b034-f0cf3b760...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Jimbo
>>
>>>> <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 14, 11:42=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>>>>> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims building
>>>>>> a Mosque near Ground Zero. Here is an article about the Ground Zero
>>>>>> Mosque.
>>
>>>>> blocks away from where the Trade Towers stood, not at "ground zero".
>>
>>>> It should be built eight or nine blocks from ground zero.
>>
>>
>> And the project plan predates the 2001 attacks.
>>
>> --
>> JDG- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> having a risk of it toppling over onto islamic ground might
> well be cheap protection from another attack.
Forget it, muslims don't care about that. When they send a suicide
bomber in a public market to kill other muslims, women & children
included, do you think they'd care about falling debris ?
panam...@hotmail.com
> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of Muslims building
> a Mosque near Ground Zero.
snip
You are a fucking moron.
Trust me, there may not be another man on Earth that wishes more than
I that there will *never* be another Mosque built *anywhere* upon the
face of the planet.
But I also hope that there'll *never* be another Church, and *never*
be another Synagogue, and any other moronic "temple" built to any
other ancient pile of superstitious shit.
Yes, it angers me that the folks I consider the greatest threat to
modern human society at large will be allowed to create their tax-free
mental torture center so close to the site of their greatest injury to
our nation. But, the US Constitution requires that in *this* country,
we treat the Muzzies (at least, the ones not killing anyone at the
moment) the same way we would treat *anyone* else who believes in
religious garbage. In case you're not keeping up, that means you
fucking Christians, too.
How many churches are there on Manhattan Island? How many are close to
the WTC site? If the Muzzie morons didn't consider the US a nation of
Christians, would they have attacked us in the first place? If
Christian idiocy wasn't responsible for our support of "Israel" since
1948, would they have ever viewed the US as an enemy? IMO (don't give
me any shit about "opinions", idiot..after all it's only *your*
opinion that there's something "wrong" with the site the fucking
Muzzies want to build their stupid thing in the first place), it's
because of the US' continued slavery to Christian mythology that this
nation was considered a prime target in the first fucking place. Would
it be "right" for me to insist that you morons couldn't repair a
church damaged in the 9/11 attack? After all, you Christian fuckers
were the *reason* we were attacked in the first place. "Burn down the
mission, if we're gonna stay alive.."
As an atheist who is also an American citizen, I have to admit..even
though I *personally* hate it that the Muzzies are building a place to
celebrate their insanity so close to the site of their greatest
success in the West, Obama's right. Under our laws in the US, the
fucking Muzzies have a legal right to build whatever the fuck they
want, wherever the fuck they want, as long as they conform with local
laws about how many fire extinguishers they need to keep their little
spot dedicated to their insanity from crumbling to the ground.
And as I've previously mentioned, there are probably many more nodules
of the Christian cancer on Manhattan Island then there are of the
Muslim cancer.
You are enemy of the US Constitution, just as much as as *any* Muzzie
that considers their god as something more important than their nation
and society. Sometimes I wonder if the reaction of Christians in the
US to the 9/11 attacks is based upon their jealousy that the Muzzies
still care enough about their own god enough to actually *do*
something about the increasing irrelevance of such a concept in the
modern world.
Even I (an American atheist) understands that the law that allows me
to discard *all* versions of theistic insanity without going to jail
is the *same* one that allows these ass-waving morons to build a
temple to their pathetic nonsense as well, regardless of where it is.
*All* religions are "equal", under US law. Theirs, yours, and *any*
other. Damn shame for skull-fucked idiots like you that we have a
President (for the moment) that actually *understands* that fact.
Are you still buying into that "US iz a Christun Nayshun!" bullshit?
Sure would explain a lot...
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
DanielSan
Actually, no. Muslims were not responsible for that.
It was a group of men. Therefore, men shouldn't build anything near the
destruction of the twin towers.
Right?
DanielSan
> In article<8uadnULylfcT__rR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
As proved by the case in California, the "majority of the people" cannot
vote for something that is blatantly unconstitutional.
DanielSan
How?
DanielSan
Really? What about all the Muslims that DO care about that?
Are you sure you're okay, Olrik?
Olrik
By building an islamic "center" near the 9/11 site.
I'm not an american, so my opinion is not about liberty, freedom, or the
US Constitution.
It *is* my opinion that some, if not most muslims are laughing at you
americans by building a mosque near the 9/11 site.
DanielSan
So, it's better to NOT build it and give the Muslim extremists yet
another piece of ammunition?
>
> I'm not an american, so my opinion is not about liberty, freedom, or the
> US Constitution.
Yet it is precisely that that protects us from Muslim extremists.
>
> It *is* my opinion that some, if not most muslims are laughing at you
> americans by building a mosque near the 9/11 site.
Really? Most Muslims?
Olrik
Beats me. Never saw any of them demonstrating in the streets against
suicide bombers.
> Are you sure you're okay, Olrik?
Yes.
(BTW, it's OK for us atheists to disagree about stuff !)
;-)
DanielSan
So, because you didn't see it, it means it doesn't exist?
>
>> Are you sure you're okay, Olrik?
>
> Yes.
>
> (BTW, it's OK for us atheists to disagree about stuff !)
>
> ;-)
>
Yes, it's okay. But when you use the argumentation of the stupid people
that post here (Christians usually), I get to call you on it, too. :)
Olrik
US military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is all they need.
>>
>> I'm not an american, so my opinion is not about liberty, freedom, or the
>> US Constitution.
>
> Yet it is precisely that that protects us from Muslim extremists.
And it is precisely what they use against you.
>>
>> It *is* my opinion that some, if not most muslims are laughing at you
>> americans by building a mosque near the 9/11 site.
>
> Really? Most Muslims?
"some"
Olrik
Dakota
Because our black President expressed his approval. The wingnuts are
riled up because we have a black President. If he had expressed his
disapproval, they would be riled up about that. It's about bigotry.
DanielSan
Actually, every time you attack Islam because it's Islam, you give them
another piece of propaganda.
>>>
>>> I'm not an american, so my opinion is not about liberty, freedom, or the
>>> US Constitution.
>>
>> Yet it is precisely that that protects us from Muslim extremists.
>
> And it is precisely what they use against you.
Sorry, but I still fail to see how an Islamic Center or even a mosque is
something that hurts us.
>
>>>
>>> It *is* my opinion that some, if not most muslims are laughing at you
>>> americans by building a mosque near the 9/11 site.
>>
>> Really? Most Muslims?
>
> "some"
Even "some"?
Dakota
> In article<vu-dnfPH2MrsovrR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2010 4:21 PM, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> I hope they build it many miles from Ground Zero. If they are able to
>>> build it near ground Zero--the Muslims will consider it to be a victory
>>> against their biggest enemy.
>>
>> Actually, not allowing the building of a "mosque" near Ground Zero would
>> be considered a victory for the "Islamofascist" terrorists.
>
> If the mosque is built in another part of New York--it will be a win for
> the citizens of NY that oppose a mosque near ground zeor and a win for the
> Muslims since they will still get to build their huge mosque.
>
Now it is a win for the Constitution. And a loss for Jason.
Dakota
Moderate Muslims have no voice in Islamic Republics where they are
subject to harsh punishment for any deviation from fundamentalist Islam.
We should welcome the moderates rather then demonizing them.
Dakota
> In article<6I6dnZa3WK3...@giganews.com>, Dakota
> <ma...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat 8/14/10 18:27, Jason wrote:
>>> In article<i46tt7$e60$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
>>> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/10 12:57 PM, Jason wrote:
>>>>> In article<i46og6$i22$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Dale Guckert
>>>>> <Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Breaking News: Obama came out today as being in favor of
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cities have control over property rights. For example, in my city, they
>>>>> will not allow bars or stores that sell alcohol within 5 miles of a
>>>>> school. The city that I live in passed a law that made it illegal for any
>>>>> stores that sells sex devices and sex videos to be located within the
>>>>> city.
>>>
>>
>> Your city has what it considers to be a compelling, secular reason that
>> those establishments should be restricted. There is no secular reason
>> for denying a building permit to those who wish to build the mosque.
>> Denial based on religion is unconstitutional.
>>
>>>
>>>> There is some sever irony in hearing purportedly conservative pundits
>>>> getting all weepy and touchy-feely about this project... until it
>>>> becomes clear that this is yet another lucrative means of filling out
>>>> the 24-hour news cycle with incoherent, selective neopatriotic blather.
>>>>
>>>> These folks, who normally argue in favor of property rights when issues
>>>> like eminent domain and the right to possession of firearms in the home
>>>> come up, all of a sudden reach for softhearted rhetoric (have you read
>>>> Palin's tear-jerking twit--er, tweet?) and talk about potential
>>>> psychological harm, and whether or not one can see the center from
>>>> "Ground Zero."
>>>>
>>>> to build the center. The TV loons and political hacks twisted that into
>>>> support for the actual building of the center, and Netkooks like Jason
>>>> lapped it up and spewed it forth on alt.atheism.
>>>
>>> I have no problems with them building a huge mosque but a poll indicated
>>> part of New York. I agree with them--A huge mosque should not be built
>>> near ground zero.
>>>
>>
>> The Constitution trumps the polls. Even if every New Yorker believed
>> that the mosque should be build elsewhere, a majority cannot take away
>> the constitutional rights of those they oppose.
>
> Do you think that the Christians should be able to build a church in the
> middle of yankee stadium? The point is that cities can control where
> buildings are built.
>
That is an absurd comparison. The Cordoba House Islamic Center will be
build on property it owns not on property owned by someone else.
The fact is that there is no secular reason to deny the building permit.
Therefore the project will proceed.
Dakota
> In article<8uadnUfylfdU_frR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2010 8:28 PM, Jason wrote:
>>> In article<tJmdnV7r5O8Nx_rR...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
>>> <dani...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> Global Enterprises LLC). Try again.
>>>
>>> It's not in the middle of yankee stadium.
>>
>> What isn't? You asked if Christians should be able to build a church in
>> the middle of Yankee Stadium. They can't because there's already a
>> private business there.
>
>
Jason realizes that he cannot come up with a rational response so he has
shifted into "let's keep the thread going as long as possible" mode.
This thread has lost its last iota of usefulness and should be left to
die alone and in peace.
Doc Smartass
news:Jason-14081...@67-150-171-43.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> I have no problems with them building a huge mosque
It. Is. Not. A. Mosque.
It's a community center, and it'll be in an existing building, jackwagon.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939
Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity: Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut!
DanielSan
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> news:Jason-14081...@67-150-171-43.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>
>> I have no problems with them building a huge mosque
>
> It. Is. Not. A. Mosque.
>
> It's a community center, and it'll be in an existing building, jackwagon.
>
He seems to think that, since a mosque is inside the community center,
that means that the entire building is a mosque.
Why, just today, I went into a cash register.
Jason
<olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are 100% correct. Thanks for your excellent post.
Jason
<ma...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
I welcome moderate Muslims but like you stated we don't usually hear from
them since they are afraid to speak their opinions. The people that will
be in charge of the Islamic Center will probably not be moderate Muslims.