Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.

del'Vhar is no bigot! Shock revelation!

Stormrider wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.

That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.

Wait? You mean our Media?

They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.

Ah, that must be where the Aus media is getting it from...come to think of it, that pretty much sums up the current federal election campaign too

I have no problem with the Mosque but if the Imam begins insite and support domestic terrorism then it is fault of the Imam and those that commit and support the acts of violence against other citizens. Those few people that actively support and commit domestic terrorism are violating the law within the US and should be brought forward for justice but to go as far as CD in stripping the rights away from people strictly because of their religon is not only juvenile but down right dangerous for any government. That is why there has been and continue to be so many bloody, internal conflicts around the world. I was deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and I have seen what can happen if intolerance is allowed to be the norm on both sides of the issue.

Pipboy101 wrote:I have no problem with the Mosque but if the Imam begins insite and support domestic terrorism then it is fault of the Imam and those that commit and support the acts of violence against other citizens. Those few people that actively support and commit domestic terrorism are violating the law within the US and should be brought forward for justice but to go as far as CD in stripping the rights away from people strictly because of their religon is not only juvenile but down right dangerous for any government. That is why there has been and continue to be so many bloody, internal conflicts around the world. I was deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and I have seen what can happen if intolerance is allowed to be the norm on both sides of the issue.

To be fair, it is almost time for a DaemonHunters/Daemons of Chaos Box Set to come out (2012, I mean).....

Still hoping for zombies though.

As I understand it Pip, it is against the teachings of the Prophet to incite or commit violence by acts of terrorism.

So not only would he be in breach of US Law but also contrary to Islam.

I am glad the mosque is being built. Huzzah!

As I understand it Pip, it is against the teachings of the Prophet to incite or commit violence by acts of terrorism.

Islam is a religion. Like all religions, it's possible to make arguments that it says virtually anything.

Religions are more like languages for morality than actual dictates for morality. They provide the language, the anecdotes, the framework for the understanding of morality. They don't actually force any specific conclusion, or at least don't do so as strongly as people like to believe.

Phryxis wrote:

As I understand it Pip, it is against the teachings of the Prophet to incite or commit violence by acts of terrorism.

Islam is a religion. Like all religions, it's possible to make arguments that it says virtually anything.

Religions are more like languages for morality than actual dictates for morality. They provide the language, the anecdotes, the framework for the understanding of morality. They don't actually force any specific conclusion, or at least don't do so as strongly as people like to believe.

Religion: A perfect thing twisted to imperfect meanings by imperfect men who(m?) think they are perfect.

just my 2cents on it, anyway.

Stormrider wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.

That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.

Wait? You mean our Media?

They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.

It would be plastered all over the media. Y'know, if it were actually true. But then I have yet to see any of you actually site a link, article, or even a name to suggest you aren't making gak up.

Which you probably are.

Be fair now, the media would jump all over it even if it wasn't true...

(You are right though, I have no idea if its true or not)

No matter the religon, it's teachings can be twisted to suit any agenda of a group to give weight to their POV. A person on a street corner screaming "kill!" would be seen as a homocidal nut case. But a person scream that because a supreme being or a because religous text states that the other person is going against the holy word and should be killed for it then it lends weight to the agenda. There is so many historical examples but a modern one is Rev Phelps out of Kansas or the ultra-violent anti-abortionist. They use their own skewed version of religon to sell their POVs to others. So if do what CD is asking then we would have to close all places of worship for all religons no matter the creed because no religon or its followers could be trusted. So by banning or restricting one religon in the US or the rest of the West would undo all that has been strived for countless generation in their efforts for freedom and equality. While there will never be a pure utopia of respect and freedom because we are only human we can try to strive for the goal of equlity and respect without having to utilize the jackboot to force that utopia on others. Future history might prove that this was just an impossible dream of an idealistic people but it is worth a try.

Colossal Donkey wrote:I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time

What is it exactly about the presence of this Mosque that runs counter to 'Western beliefs'?

Colossal Donkey wrote:
You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.

What is being rewarded? Some Muslims destroyed the WTC, and now some other Muslims are building a Mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero. The people involved in each event had no connection beyond their faith.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.

That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.

Wait? You mean our Media?

They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.

It would be plastered all over the media. Y'know, if it were actually true. But then I have yet to see any of you actually site a link, article, or even a name to suggest you aren't making gak up.

Which you probably are.

I think he's referring to Feisal Abdul Rauf, but confusing Rauf's refusal to comment on whether Hamas is a terrorist organization with "big supporter".

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.

That is interesting, I'm a little surprised the media hasnt jumped all over that to be honest.

Wait? You mean our Media?

They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.

It would be plastered all over the media. Y'know, if it were actually true. But then I have yet to see any of you actually site a link, article, or even a name to suggest you aren't making gak up.

Which you probably are.

Why would I make that up? I really dont care where they put thier mosque, it has no effect on me whatsoever, so what would my motive be for lying about the cleric? Find your own link.

Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.

You mean this guy?

Rauf is neither a supporter of Hamas (he simply does not refer to them, collectively, as a terrorist organization) nor a proponent of Sharia. This is a guy who wrote a book entitled What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America.

You really need to check your information.

Why would I make that up?

I can't answer a question that you should be asking yourself.

I really dont care where they put thier mosque, it has no effect on me whatsoever, so what would my motive be for lying about the cleric?

Like I said, I really can't know the motivations that would cause you to lie about something.

Find your own link.

Thats not how it works.

Good to see he is a Sunni, his answer about Hamas still troubles me though. They are a legitimate party in Lebanon and they are also a terrorist group. I think his answer was cowardly, but not inflamatory. I will have to do some more looking about his "Sharia law" comments, I can't right now as I am on an Android phone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Why would I make that up?

I can't answer a question that you should be asking yourself.

I really dont care where they put thier mosque, it has no effect on me whatsoever, so what would my motive be for lying about the cleric?

Like I said, I really can't know the motivations that would cause you to lie about something.

Find your own link.

Thats not how it works.

Do you ever answer something without being snide? Is it your problem with people in general or just you?

Well this was pleasent new from accros the pond. +1 for acceptance in the US

@ Stormrider: Shuma is just trying to get under your skinn, as he always in a arguemnt he did not start.

Do you ever answer something without being snide? Is it your problem with people in general or just you?

You made an outlandish and inflammatory statement then decried the media as sensationalist despite (apparently) not wanting to carry your story. Your statements were factually incorrect, self conflicting, and slightly egocentric. I responded snidely, I feel I made the correct decision.

@ Stormrider: Shuma is just trying to get under your skinn, as he always in a arguemnt he did not start.

Snideness is the purest kung fu.

Colossal Donkey wrote:

avantgarde wrote:Are you American? If not stfu and stop telling us how to run our country.

I do find it amusing that people bitch about them building a new mosque when the Muslim congregation has been meeting at that location for months. Apparently it's cool they're worshiping there but as soon as they try to renovate it's some kind of islamo-facist conspiracy.

Wow an American telling somebody from another country how to do something or think. Who would have thought. Why can't you accept other peoples thoughts, name me a country with Islam as it's main religion that treats its people as well as the West.

Yeah it may be out of order to say all Americans are like this. However if other nations are not able to critique your nation then what the feth is the point. We may as well bend over and receive what we are told.

Holy contradictions Batman!

Bad troll is bad.

There are always going to be people mentally scarred by the attack that cannot accept it, but their induced disorder is not their fault. Just like it's not the average American's fault that he thinks he has anything to do with running his country either. What do all of those psychiatrists do, anyway?

That said, I think it is thoughtless of the Muslims involved to lobby for this when they know fully well just how emotional a place this is for a lot of peoples. It's a lot more than 0.01% of Muslims I know personally that think that this is funny in a purely spiteful way. What proportion of those mentally affected enough to want to build this also consider it, in some small way, a testament to victory? Even if not, it's just insensitive because there are a large number of people who absolutely cannot be expected to accept it. This is different to referendum or what is good for society. We are dealing with mentally ill people on both sides.

If you can't see how building a mosque can't offend a victim of 9/11, then you're not being reasonable. I know perfectly well that Islam is not extremist in and of itself any more than Christianity taken down to fundamentals. I could care less about the decade old dead who had nothing to do with me on the other side of the world. This is still a dumb idea.

The 80%+ votes against the mosque (and the comments that came with it) made me a very sad panda.

I can understand why some relatives of 9/11 victims would be upset. That doesn't make them right.

Fortunately, we live in a world where everyone doesn't have to be right. Understanding and acceptance is far more important. From both sides.

Regardless, this should be considered in terms of what is going to be best for the society involved. If it all goes ahead, hopefully it will be for the best and help people to understand.

Fingers crossed eh?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:That said, I think it is thoughtless of the Muslims involved to lobby for this when they know fully well just how emotional a place this is for a lot of peoples.

They didn't really lobby for it. They inquired about acquiring the building, it was possibly going to be classified as a historical building which wouldn't allow for that, but in the end it was not deemed as such and they acquired it. If anyone did the lobbying it was the people on the other side of the argument. As to the location, as has been stated several times, it is not ground zero nor was it part of it, it just happens to be not that far from it.

Well, really, if we didn't build religious structures next to the sites they attacked - most of europe would be empty.

Ahtman wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:That said, I think it is thoughtless of the Muslims involved to lobby for this when they know fully well just how emotional a place this is for a lot of peoples.

They didn't really lobby for it. They inquired about acquiring the building, it was possibly going to be classified as a historical building which wouldn't allow for that, but in the end it was not deemed as such and they acquired it. If anyone did the lobbying it was the people on the other side of the argument. As to the location, as has been stated several times, it is not ground zero nor was it part of it, it just happens to be not that far from it.

In that case, I have been misled by a media buzzword and stand corrected.

ChrisCP wrote:Well, really, if we didn't build religious structures next to the sites they attacked - most of europe would be empty.

QFT!

One analogy that I can think of is black people lobbying against the construction of any churches in the south of america because the Klu Klux Klan was a radical cristian sect.

Which would be equally as ridiculous.

I give this thread until about page 4.

5 tops.

Yawn.... BFHD. Its cool to plop a "christian church" in any old strip mall or empty storefront. Even seen one inside a regular mall. They pop up next to liquer stores, chinese take out, cell phone centers, and game stores. More than half are not or barely affiliated with whatever branch of "christianity", usually some form of Baptist, they associate their name with. Most are more likely cults or cult like.... Westboro Baptist ring a bell?

The Muslims working for this mosque will most likely have a dedication and blessing ceremony, making it their 'holy ground'. Many of those strip mall "churches" don't even go that far.
Let them build their temple..... at least they are being somewhat honest with their intentions.