@failures art,
I know you haven't argued that, but you've taken this all as stirring up a hornet's nest, which can have negative aspects. One of the key arguments humming through various posts on this thread is that if muslims were only more sensitive they wouldn't do this there, either simply re sensitivity or that it may stir up a nest of hornets (propaganda from various sides, and maybe more).
@djjd62,
Me too. It happens once in a while..
@Intrepid,
Quote:Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians any more that a handful of Islamic terrorists speak for all Muslims.
That is absolutely true, and that's the point. Robertson is an extremely intolerant man. He no more speaks for all Christians than those 9/11 radical extremists spoke for all Muslims.
But Robertson's involvement in this issue shows that it's about more than offending the sensitivities of the 9/11 victims' families. Robertson just doesn't like Muslims--all Muslims. He's stirring up hatred with this issue, or certainly fanning its flames.
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
failures art wrote:
The fact that Pat Robertson is the at the forefront of the opposition highlights what I'm saying is going to be the challenge here. Even if the threat of international terror is over-stated, the national threat of evangelical fascism is under-stated. The new mosque is a perfect battleground for a culture war for those who wish to wage one.
A
R
T
That seems to give Pat Robertson much more credit than he deserves.
I'm less concerned with credit. His power and media platform is what I'm concerned with.
A
R
T
I never cared much for Bloomberg, but may change my mind. He took the right action in this.
@failures art,
We don't have anybody, to my knowledge, like Pat Robertson in Canada. To that I say Amen. I don't understand the radical right in the U.S. or why that man has so much, as you say,power.
@Intrepid,
that's interesting, i don't think we do either, most of the big television guys from the states just get followers in canada, we didn't really need canadian versions of jim and pat and all those guys because folks here just watched them, there is some guy in brampton (i think), one of the real holy roller type churches (speaking in tongues and such) who gets some heat, but i can't think of his name
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:
We don't have anybody, to my knowledge, like Pat Robertson in Canada. To that I say Amen. I don't understand the radical right in the U.S. or why that man has so much, as you say,power.
well Intrepid keep that in mind when we we heathen americans express our fears and dislikes of those "christians" because they are the ones constantly in our faces.
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
Concurring - and I'm in Manhattan. Banning someone or something on grounds of religious prejudice is unconstitutional and abhorrent - even in wartime, where an emergency can be shown to exist. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant banned the "Israelites" from territories controlled by his armies in 1862, during a very difficult period in the Civil War. That order had to be rescinded 3 days later. There's even less excuse for similar actions now.
That order was intended to stop Jewish merchants from selling supplies to the Union Army, so only nice Gentile business men can profit from the Union Army's needs. The Secretary of War for the Confederacy was Judah P. Benjamin, of German Jewish extraction.
I can't speak for the people in question. It's mere supposition on my part. But, it could have been out of politeness they waited this long.
@edgarblythe,
An a2k friend who doesn't post anymore was strongly against him for reasons I missed hearing about, but I've been ok with Bloomberg from afar except for running for the third term, which was on the tricky side, to me.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I can't speak for the people in question. It's mere supposition on my part. But, it could have been out of politeness they waited this long.
Certainly an angle worth consideration.
A
R
T
@failures art,
failures art wrote:No Joe. I do not think their motives matter.
Then why did you write this?
Earlier, failures art wrote:I must however express some passion myself here. I mirror what was said previously, why would they want to build here?
If you weren't inquiring into their motives when you asked "why would they want to build here," then what
were you asking?
For the benefit of youse guys that ain't from New Yawk:
Manhattan is really like two commercial centers. Wall Street that includes Ground Zero, and mid-town.
Wall Street has many Muslims working there in service capacities. Taxi drivers, food stand merchants, whatever. They need a place for their daily prayers. They also are supposed to wash their feet before prayer. A mosque affords the Wall Street people that are of the Muslim faith to practice their faith with some dignity, rather than a storefront mosque.
There are many Muslims in my neck of the woods. Veiled, head covered, whatever. No one pays them any mind, since New Yorkers are cosmopolitan for the most part.
I understand that the Christians cannot build a church in some Muslim nations. And we, for the most part, understand it might not be polite to build a memorial for the U.S. Air Force in Hiroshima (I heard this analogy on talk radio); however, New York City is fairly happy with all of its immigrants, whether they are documented, or undocumented. That is NYC; non- NYC natives can often have an opinion that may reflect the thinking from other parts of the country, or what the media has chosen to show of those that are against the mosque.
Anyway, I do not care if there is a mosque near Ground Zero, since Muslims have their need to pray five times a day, and it gets very cold outside in the winter in NYC.
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:Personally, I find the whole idea abhorrent. New York is a big city, and there are plenty of places where the group could build a mosque.
As a libertarian, I find it much more abhorrent when people think they have a vote on where a particular religious faith can build a place of worship. It is abhorrent to me in the same way as ghettos for Jews are abhorrent. ("Brooklyn and the Lower East Side are big places. Why do Jews
have to rent apartments on Park Avenue?")
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:You are right on that - but it is was in support of Islam and a twisted view of the religion.
Why is this a reason that decent Muslims should roll over and stop exercising their First-Amendment rights? Instead, why
shouldn't decent Muslims show a presence near Ground Zero and set straight the extremists' twisted views of their religion?
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
failures art wrote:No Joe. I do not think their motives matter.
Then why did you write this?
Earlier, failures art wrote:I must however express some passion myself here. I mirror what was said previously, why would they want to build here?
If you weren't inquiring into their motives when you asked "why would they want to build here," then what
were you asking?
I'm asking if they knew what they'd get in terms of additional social or cultural baggage. That's all. They will get a lot, and arguably MORE than just any mosque. To the degree I understand any religion, it seems that it will be hard for them to move forward on their spiritual agenda if they are constantly entangled in some culture war.
I was not implying that the reason that they'd want to be there is some sort of conspiracy Joe.
A
R
T
@Lash,
Lash wrote:I think what bothers me about this is Muslims' habit of erecting mosques to denote conquest. It's hard to know this habit and not to see the very clear connection of that site. Why there?
As Joefromchicago says, that's entirely their business. America is a free country; Muslims don't owe you an explanation for building their places of worship wherever they feel like building them.
You owe
them a reason why their freedom to exercise their religion should be suspended on Ground Zero, and within a two-block perimeter around it. Not anybody else's free exercise of
their religion, mind you---just the Muslims'.
