PDA

View Full Version : Controversy over Ground Zero mosque plans


touchthesky
19-05-10, 09:48
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8691382.stm

A controversial plan to build a mosque has divided relatives of the victims who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The mosque will be close to where the twin towers once stood in New York.

Critics call the location of the proposed Islamic complex "offensive" but others hope it will help to increase understanding between communities.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/ground-mosque-plan-stirs-controversy/story?id=10670631


Discuss.

Kelly Craftman
19-05-10, 09:54
I think its stupid, I think they should keep it as a memorial site forever. Build nothing near it or on it.

Lemmie
19-05-10, 10:00
The site of the mosque and community centre is two blocks away from Ground Zero. It's not like it's sitting on top of it. I'm absolutely with Charles Wolf in the BBC video, as well as Donna Marsh O'Connor in the ABC report.

Greenkey2
19-05-10, 10:04
Curiously, I thought the accompanying story about a fox cub befriending a lurcher was a better show of tolerance and peaceful co-existance.

LightningRider
19-05-10, 10:06
Considering it's not even that near, I'd go ahead and put it.

Cochrane
19-05-10, 10:09
Iím all for it. Muslims were killed in those attacks just as people from all other religions and world views, and are just as appalled at them. Nobody would object to building a church near Ground Zero, after all.

Chocola teapot
19-05-10, 10:48
Yeah, Build one.

TheBloodRed
19-05-10, 10:52
Offensive?

lol wut? :ton:

suli
19-05-10, 15:04
why would it be offensive? the muslims blew up the towers? they claim that Talban did the attack (which has no connection or power to any group of Muslims in the world except in Aghanistan)

beside I dont think that they are building in the same spot..but in some block near it.

remote91
19-05-10, 15:07
Oh my. Silly, silly people.

Catapharact
19-05-10, 15:09
I think its stupid, I think they should keep it as a memorial site forever. Build nothing near it or on it.

That only shows justification for the actions committed by the terrorists. Building nothing there will only serve as a flashing strobe light to morons that you can indeed scar the minds of your precieved "enemies" by inflicting harm on the country's civilian population.

As for the article itself, the mosque is being built TWO BLOCKS AWAY from the site. There is no freakin controversy other then moronic jacks who do want to stir something up.

Love2Raid
19-05-10, 15:37
What's controversial about it?

Please explain.

Dennis's Mom
19-05-10, 16:11
This is going to sound crass, but IMO the relatives of those who died in the WTC attack have had far too much to say about what happens with that property. They think they can hold NYC hostage forever to their sensibilities.

Goose
19-05-10, 16:23
why would it be offensive? the muslims blew up the towers? they claim that Talban did the attack (which has no connection or power to any group of Muslims in the world except in Aghanistan)

beside I dont think that they are building in the same spot..but in some block near it.

Well it was al qaeda that did it, taliban were just stupid enough not to extradite those that were part of the groups known to have helped.

When i first heard of this, it was said that the mosque would be part of a community center which is located on ground zero, but iv heard different versions.

suli
19-05-10, 16:27
Well it was al qaeda that did it, taliban were just stupid enough not to extradite those that were part of the groups known to have helped.


oh yes I forgot you're completely right. but still Alqaeda is an outlaw orgnization with only couple of thousnds (if not hundreds) people involved in it. Muslims are morethan one bilion and 200 million people..we cant be all labled "offensive" and "terrorists" to the families of the victimes.

Goose
20-05-10, 18:10
oh yes I forgot you're completely right. but still Alqaeda is an outlaw orgnization with only couple of thousnds (if not hundreds) people involved in it. Muslims are morethan one bilion and 200 million people..we cant be all labled "offensive" and "terrorists" to the families of the victimes.

Its a great misconception, but Al qaeda isnt a group, its a list of groups sympathetic to one ideal, they span from south east asia, across the middle east and into africa, which is why its a global war on terror, Afghanistan, and Iraq to, were just the picked battle fields. Passports found on dead jihadis in places like Iraq range from as far as the Balklans.

igonge
20-05-10, 18:12
But they aren't building it on ground zero. What's the big deal?

TRfan23
20-05-10, 18:45
Let them build it, there's no connection between the suicide bombers in 9/11 and Islam. Islam is just a peaceful religion like any other ;) Besides as others have said it's not like it's right next to it.
If a Church would be allowed to be built there, I don't see an issue with a Mosque being built there.

ajrich17901
20-05-10, 19:01
I think its stupid, I think they should keep it as a memorial site forever. Build nothing near it or on it.

This.

Love2Raid
20-05-10, 19:04
Why? They could create a monument and put it on Ground Zero, it doesn't have to be the size of two huge buildings. Why do they have to leave this gaping hole in the heart of the Big Apple so that it keeps bleeding? It's not a grave/tomb. They should move on.

ryan91
20-05-10, 22:00
let them build it. i think there is no relation between muslims and the douche osama. i don't think he is a muslim. a muslim isn't suppose to do such bad things, a human musn't do such painful things. if he thinks that killing ppl from other religions makes god to love him, he can go f! himself :wve:

peeves
20-05-10, 22:23
Well the muslims terrorists who killed innocent people all had something to do with terrorists thought religion was talking to them.

Gregori
20-05-10, 22:58
I'm all for building the biggest Mosque possible on ground zero. Atleast we know no planes will be flown into that! :)

voltz
20-05-10, 23:08
A rather pointless issue here don't you think? I guess New Yorkers have too much time on their hands.

Ward Dragon
21-05-10, 00:08
I'm all for building the biggest Mosque possible on ground zero. Atleast we know no planes will be flown into that! :)

Don't be so sure. The terrorists have bombed mosques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Askari_Mosque) in the past, so I doubt it would stop them. They have absolutely no regard for human life and they kill a lot of Muslims too.

In any case, I would understand the protest if any religious building was being built at ground zero, as that would seem to exclude victims of other religions from being remembered. However if the mosque is going to be built on a different site a few blocks away I don't think that should be a problem.

Gregori
21-05-10, 00:10
Don't be so sure. The terrorists have bombed mosques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Askari_Mosque) in the past, so I doubt it would stop them. They have absolutely no regard for human life and they kill a lot of Muslims too.

In any case, I would understand the protest if any religious building was being built at ground zero, as that would seem to exclude victims of other religions from being remembered. However if the mosque is going to be built on a different site a few blocks away I don't think that should be a problem.

I'm totally not being serious :D


I think they should build a runway instead!!

Lemmie
21-05-10, 00:11
Don't be so sure. The terrorists have bombed mosques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Askari_Mosque) in the past, so I doubt it would stop them. They have absolutely no regard for human life and they kill a lot of Muslims too.

Very true. I would argue that the biggest victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims themselves.

voltz
21-05-10, 00:13
Don't be so sure. The terrorists have bombed mosques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Askari_Mosque) in the past, so I doubt it would stop them. They have absolutely no regard for human life and they kill a lot of Muslims too.

In any case, I would understand the protest if any religious building was being built at ground zero, as that would seem to exclude victims of other religions from being remembered. However if the mosque is going to be built on a different site a few blocks away I don't think that should be a problem.

If it's just a mosque, we can always build another to replace it. Silly terrorists need to get the message thru their heads....

Gregori
21-05-10, 00:14
Anyways, seriously speaking now.... :pi:

I think the best thing to do is not to give in to the terrorists and show them that you embrace freedom of religion and belief :)

Lizard of Oz
21-05-10, 00:23
The fact that the people find it offensive it's a bit wrong.

I think racial or religious profiling has something to do with it.

Reggie
21-05-10, 11:40
Curiously, I thought the accompanying story about a fox cub befriending a lurcher was a better show of tolerance and peaceful co-existance.
Nicely put Jenni.

voltz
21-05-10, 11:53
The fact that the people find it offensive it's a bit wrong.

I think racial or religious profiling has something to do with it.

Religious profiling? Tell people to move to where their religion is welcome, problem solved.

suli
21-05-10, 13:40
Its a great misconception, but Al qaeda isnt a group, its a list of groups sympathetic to one ideal, they span from south east asia, across the middle east and into africa, which is why its a global war on terror, Afghanistan, and Iraq to, were just the picked battle fields. Passports found on dead jihadis in places like Iraq range from as far as the Balklans.

actually I know that..and I said it's an orgnaization! and I know it's spread world wide..but my point was that al qaeda isnt all muslims. and they are hurting muslims tbh.

MattTR
21-05-10, 14:30
Hmm, well if it's not really close I don't see a problem.. I guess people get offended really easily.. which is usually the case for a lot of situations like this. :(

GlaÁon
21-05-10, 15:57
The title of this thread is very misleading! I thought they were proposing to build it over the actual ground-zero site! That, I would have a problem with!

But as it is; no, it's totally fine -- all the power to them.

lara c. fan
21-05-10, 15:58
I think its stupid, I think they should keep it as a memorial site forever. Build nothing near it or on it.

Bit extreme, isn't it?
Worse things have happened where memorial sites weren't kept up, I'm sure.

Gregori
21-05-10, 16:20
There is no war on terror

GlaÁon
21-05-10, 16:20
Bit extreme, isn't it?
Worse things have happened where memorial sites weren't kept up, I'm sure.

Such as?

lara c. fan
21-05-10, 16:22
Such as?

You don't seriously believe that 9/11 is the worst thing that has ever happened, do you?

Anyway, examples, let me find some. Although, we could be talking maybe a long time back.

Alright, here's one for ya.

The World Wars.

GlaÁon
21-05-10, 16:27
You don't seriously believe that 9/11 is the worst thing that has ever happened, do you?

Anyway, examples, let me find some. Although, we could be talking maybe a long time back.

Alright, here's one for ya.

The World Wars.

Now you're being silly. Of course I realise that it wasn't, "the worst thing that's ever happened". :rolleyes:


And, for the record, there are plenty of World War I & II memorial sites.

lara c. fan
21-05-10, 16:44
Now you're being silly. Of course I realise that it wasn't, "the worst thing that's ever happened". :rolleyes:


And, for the record, there are plenty of World War I & II memorial sites.

And there are plenty more no longer in existence.

GlaÁon
21-05-10, 16:49
And there are plenty more no longer in existence.

Actually, not really. A destruction of a war memorial in Georgia is only one that comes to mind for me actually.

lara c. fan
21-05-10, 16:52
Actually, not really. A destruction of a war memorial in Georgia is only one that comes to mind for me actually.

That's one, at the very least...

GlaÁon
21-05-10, 16:56
That's one, at the very least...

Okay, seriously - are you going to produce any evidence to back your argument any time soon? Memorials aren't just built over! It's always a huge deal when anyone plans to do anything with a Memorial.

lara c. fan
21-05-10, 16:59
Okay, seriously - are you going to produce any evidence to back your argument any time soon? Memorials aren't just built over! It's always a huge deal when anyone plans to do anything with a Memorial.

This is being built NEAR to the memorial.
Two different things.

Yeah, a huge deal, but do you think that would really stop them?

GlaÁon
21-05-10, 17:03
This is being built NEAR to the memorial.
Two different things.

Yeah, a huge deal, but do you think that would really stop them?

The title of this thread is very misleading! I thought they were proposing to build it over the actual ground-zero site! That, I would have a problem with!

But as it is; no, it's totally fine -- all the power to them.

I've already said that I think what they're doing is perfectly fine; but I would disagree if it were to be built on the Ground Zero site.

And frankly, Id be worried for the building and anyone who went there. Imagine the hate crime. =/

lara c. fan
21-05-10, 17:07
I've already said that I think what they're doing is perfectly fine; but I would disagree if it were to be built on the Ground Zero site.


I might disagree a bit, but the world needs to move on. It's seen much worse events than 9/11, and those events have since been mainly forgotten.

Love2Raid
21-05-10, 17:09
I don't think it can be compared to the World Wars. Because waaay more people died in those wars and they didn't all die in one place. But I agree that they shouldn't keep the whole area empty forever.

Cochrane
21-05-10, 17:14
A memorial is important, but a memorial is something very different from a scar. Ground Zero, as it stands today, is a scar, a hole, a symbol of defeat for the free world and a symbol of victory for the terrorists. I strongly think that it should not be left that way. However, a memorial for those who died is also highly important, and should, if possible, form an integral part of any future construction on the site.

GlaÁon
21-05-10, 17:15
A memorial is important, but a memorial is something very different from a scar. Ground Zero, as it stands today, is a scar, a hole, a symbol of defeat for the free world and a symbol of victory for the terrorists. I strongly think that it should not be left that way. However, a memorial for those who died is also highly important, and should, if possible, form an integral part of any future construction on the site.

:tmb:

Love2Raid
21-05-10, 17:16
A memorial is important, but a memorial is something very different from a scar. Ground Zero, as it stands today, is a scar, a hole, a symbol of defeat for the free world and a symbol of victory for the terrorists. I strongly think that it should not be left that way. However, a memorial for those who died is also highly important, and should, if possible, form an integral part of any future construction on the site.
Yes, yes, indeed!

CiaKonwerski
03-07-10, 23:25
Just found this thread. I think this is the worst plan ever. It horrifies me that 32% of people actually for this.

lara c. fan
03-07-10, 23:26
Just found this thread. I think this is the worst plan ever. It horrifies me that 32% of people actually for this.

Already been discussed.

Also, you come across a as a little...racist, I guess I could say. People can support it because it means moving on from 9/11. And besides, it's not like every Islamic person is out to blow us all up before tea time, is it?

Oh, and it's near, not on. Says that in the article :)


If you really can't believe it.

CiaKonwerski
03-07-10, 23:27
I was not coming off as racist in the other thread. Either way, having a mosque even near Ground Zero is stupid.

Kelly Craftman
03-07-10, 23:28
I was not coming off as racist in the other thread. Either way, having a mosque even near Ground Zero is stupid.

Why? It's like having Tesco near an Asda. No problem :p

lara c. fan
03-07-10, 23:28
I was not coming off as racist in the other thread. Either way, having a mosque even near Ground Zero is stupid.

Why? Explain your reasons. And no, because it's religious doesn't count. Because it's Islamic doesn't count either.

scion05
03-07-10, 23:31
I don't like the idea of having something religious there either. It's religion that everyone pulls into the 9/11 story, so why not keep it out of it in the end ?

I'd sooner there be a simple memorial and perhaps some flowers or something planted around. But a church or a mosque to me is just going to provoke problems.

TRfan23
03-07-10, 23:33
^ I know but people need to get it into their heads that religion isn't the issue. It's plain extremism that's to blame. Which sadly has given religion a bad name, especially towards Islam. No thanks to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as examples...

CiaKonwerski
03-07-10, 23:35
Putting up a mosque near Ground Zero, for one is pretty much a reward for Muslims. To most people it would seem as if the mosque is saying that it was okay for what Al-Qaeda did. It would be deemed as a memorial for the Muslims that were lost that day. And no, I do not have a problem with anyone who is Islamic, but when the majority of people from Islam etc. are being raised from birth learning to hate Americans and that we should be destroyed it gets me extremely aggravated that some of you are Okay with them pretty much building these big great religious memorials for them where terrorists killed hundreds of people that day, the wide majority of them being Americans.

Draco
03-07-10, 23:35
Am I the only person on earth who thinks they should build another world trade center?

Mad Tony
03-07-10, 23:35
I don't like the idea of having something religious there either. It's religion that everyone pulls into the 9/11 story, so why not keep it out of it in the end ?

I'd sooner there be a simple memorial and perhaps some flowers or something planted around. But a church or a mosque to me is just going to provoke problems.Why would a church cause problems? A lot of Americans are Christian so I expect if anything a church might be quite appropriate.

scion05
03-07-10, 23:41
Because religion is religion. By building a church there and not a mosque it's as though the government is pointing the blame at muslims in general and is ignoring them. However, if they build a mosque there, then it looks as though the extremist terrorists have succeeded, and looks bad for the everyday muslim.

The way I see it if nothing religious is built there, then it avoids any such issues. A line such as " a lot of americans are christians " is all fair and well but that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate that a church should be built there.

I'm not going to argue this point further right now, no disrespect to any of you, but at this moment I just don't see any need for anything to be there but a respectful, peaceful memorial where it doesn't seem anyone is superior/winning.

CiaKonwerski
03-07-10, 23:42
I agree that if anything should be there it should be a memorial. Not a Mosque.

Killercowz
03-07-10, 23:42
Am I the only person on earth who thinks they should build another world trade center?

Well they're kinda building this. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKR2eiQG8Sg

They're also building a memorial in the footprints of the original towers.

Mad Tony
03-07-10, 23:44
Because religion is religion. By building a church there and not a mosque it's as though the government is pointing the blame at muslims in general and is ignoring them. However, if they build a mosque there, then it looks as though the extremist terrorists have succeeded, and looks bad for the everyday muslim.

The way I see it if nothing religious is built there, then it avoids any such issues. A line such as " a lot of americans are christians " is all fair and well but that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate that a church should be built there.

I'm not going to argue this point further right now, no disrespect to any of you, but at this moment I just don't see any need for anything to be there but a respectful, peaceful memorial where it doesn't seem anyone is superior/winning.I really don't see how building a church is pointing the blame at Muslims.

I think you might be missing the point here anyway. IRC the original article talks about plans to build a mosque near the Ground Zero site, not on it.

scion05
03-07-10, 23:47
No I'm more than aware of that, as is anyone who actually read the article or the first post :ton:

The question that's on my mind is... what is the NEED for any of it in the middle of a city centre ? I'd understand if it was say some less prominent religion like scientology, some spiritualist temple or the kabballah, as these religions don't have a big enough following to be able to afford a place of worship in the small towns, but actually just a church/mosque? Hmmmm.

CiaKonwerski
03-07-10, 23:49
All Muslims are not terrorists, but most, if not all terrorists are Muslims.

Cochrane
03-07-10, 23:50
Putting up a mosque near Ground Zero, for one is pretty much a reward for Muslims. To most people it would seem as if the mosque is saying that it was okay for what Al-Qaeda did. It would be deemed as a memorial for the Muslims that were lost that day. And no, I do not have a problem with anyone who is Islamic, but when the majority of people from Islam etc. are being raised from birth learning to hate Americans and that we should be destroyed it gets me extremely aggravated that some of you are Okay with them pretty much building these big great religious memorials for them where terrorists killed hundreds of people that day, the wide majority of them being Americans.

People like you are the precise reason why a mosque should absolutely be built there. Keep in mind that most muslims killed in this attack were NOT the terrorists, but normal, peaceful american people in their office, going somewhere on a plane, tourists visiting a New York landmark or similar. Creating a memorial for them is perfectly appropriate and also a clear sign that muslims do not approve of what Al Qaeda did, but that they were hurt there just as people with any other world view. Of course, some non-muslim americans will always be too narrow-minded and stupid to see that. I recommend you to try and avoid becoming one of them.

Muslims do not hate the US, do not think that it should be destroyed and are as horrified about the attacks as you are. It is true that some of the most dangerous nutjobs out there at the moment call themselves muslims, but blaming that on the entire group, as you do, is wrong.

Edit to add:
All Muslims are not terrorists, but most, if not all terrorists are Muslims.

Now that’s bull****. There are plenty of terrorist organisations that claim to follow different faiths or none faith at all, or some different belief system (communism is still surprisingly popular). Also, your statement doesn’t prove anything. Not all americans committed atrocities in Abu Ghraib, but all who did there were americans. What does that say about americans in general? Nothing.

Gregori
03-07-10, 23:55
All Muslims are not terrorists, but most, if not all terrorists are Muslims.

All terrorist are muslim?


Well, that's just not true.

Cochrane
03-07-10, 23:58
I'm not going to argue this point further right now, no disrespect to any of you, but at this moment I just don't see any need for anything to be there but a respectful, peaceful memorial where it doesn't seem anyone is superior/winning.

Thatís certainly what Iíd like best as well, but in a country such as the US, you can generally expect that someone will build a church or similar near the site (I donít know whether everybody reading this thread realized that the mosque was being built a few blocks away from Ground Zero, not on or even directly next to it). If someone is building a church, why not a mosque as well? There are still enough people out there who essentially believe that all muslims are evil and happy about the 9/11 attacks. By creating a high-profile presence of muslims who do not think so at that location, the public opinion might start to change slowly.

CiaKonwerski
03-07-10, 23:59
People like you are the precise reason why a mosque should absolutely be built there. Keep in mind that most muslims killed in this attack were NOT the terrorists, but normal, peaceful american people in their office, going somewhere on a plane, tourists visiting a New York landmark or similar. Creating a memorial for them is perfectly appropriate and also a clear sign that muslims do not approve of what Al Qaeda did, but that they were hurt there just as people with any other world view. Of course, some non-muslim americans will always be too narrow-minded and stupid to see that. I recommend you to try and avoid becoming one of them.

Muslims do not hate the US, do not think that it should be destroyed and are as horrified about the attacks as you are. It is true that some of the most dangerous nutjobs out there at the moment call themselves muslims, but blaming that on the entire group, as you do, is wrong.

Edit to add:


Now thatís bull****. There are plenty of terrorist organisations that claim to follow different faiths or none faith at all, or some different belief system (communism is still surprisingly popular). Also, your statement doesnít prove anything. Not all americans committed atrocities in Abu Ghraib, but all who did there were americans. What does that say about americans in general? Nothing.

Okay, you have a point there. But try to see this from my side for a second. How would Muslims feel if Americans erected a memorial or a Cathedral in Abu Graib? Just an example. It's not the idea of the Muslims building a mosque that I am in opposition to, it is the location. It is like a slap in the face to those who lost family members in the attack on 9/11. Why is it so important to the Muslims to build the mosque in that vicinity anyway?

Lemmie
04-07-10, 00:01
All Muslims are not terrorists, but most, if not all terrorists are Muslims.

Such rubbish. There are terrorist organisations all over the world. Al-Qaeda and their affiliates merely get the most airtime.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:03
^Yes there are terrorist organisations all over the world, but the Muslim terrorists are the ones who actually want all of Americans dead and even attempted to get rid of us, and did.

Lemmie
04-07-10, 00:05
^Yes there are terrorist organisations all over the world, but the Muslim terrorists are the ones who actually want all of Americans dead and even attempted to get rid of us, and did.

That does not explain why you made that assertion though.

Mad Tony
04-07-10, 00:06
The question that's on my mind is... what is the NEED for any of it in the middle of a city centre ? I'd understand if it was say some less prominent religion like scientology, some spiritualist temple or the kabballah, as these religions don't have a big enough following to be able to afford a place of worship in the small towns, but actually just a church/mosque? Hmmmm.What are you getting at here? Are you saying there shouldn't be religious buildings in city centers because apparently there isn't a need for them despite the fact that there are many more people (and thus more worshipers) in cities than there are in towns?

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:08
I should have said that most of the terrorists that want us all dead and are willing to stop at nothing to see it happen, ARE MUSLIMS.

scion05
04-07-10, 00:09
Depends on the place and the amount of people living there. If it's a city full of business and just surrounded by suburbs than I'd say there isn't a need. If it's a city where a lot of people live, then yes there is a need but it depends on the district.

Is it really necessary to have one near Ground Zero ?

Is that really the kind of place one goes to pray ? It's like when you get shopping centres with prayer rooms, who on earth goes out, buys a pair of shoes and then reads the bible or prays ? Seems pointless.

Lemmie
04-07-10, 00:12
Why did you make the assertion saying that Al-Qaeda gets the least air time? No, no they do not.

I said they got the most air-time. And not unnecessarily.

But I see you realised that and edited accordingly.

I should have said that most of the terrorists that want us all dead and are willing to stop at nothing to see it happen, ARE MUSLIMS.

I don't have much of a problem with your amended statement.

But you seem to think that all Muslims are of the same mind. Saying that Muslims the world over are being taught to hate America, for example; that is nonsense.

Cochrane
04-07-10, 00:12
Okay, you have a point there. But try to see this from my side for a second. How would Muslims feel if Americans erected a memorial or a Cathedral in Abu Graib? Just an example. It's not the idea of the Muslims building a mosque that I am in opposition to, it is the location. It is like a slap in the face to those who lost family members in the attack on 9/11. Why is it so important to the Muslims to build the mosque in that vicinity anyway?

Abu Ghraib is perhaps not the best comparison, as there were no american christians hurt by that, but I get what you mean. I can certainly understand the feeling: Muslims killed our family members, and now they want to celebrate by building a mosque? But obviously the muslims that are building a mosque are very different ones from the ones who brought the towers down. They lost family members there too, and are not happier about it. The victimís families ultimately have to learn to accept that. I realize that this is probably painful, but not doing so would be extremely unfair towards people who've been through the same.

As for why the mosque is needed there, I think it is deliberately to stir this discussion. By saying, "We are building the mosque here," they are daring everyone else to find an answer to the question "Why not build it here?", one that is better than just "I donít like muslims after 9/11". If nobody finds such an answer (and I donít think there is one), then they have to accept the Islam as equal to all the other faiths that would be allowed to build a church, temple, synagoge or whatever there without any question.

Catracoth
04-07-10, 00:12
I fail to understand how this is controversial. I mean, I understand that no one really knows what culture was behind the 9/11 attack, but to blindly follow other people's beliefs that Muslims were responsible is ignorance and arrogance at best.

Like it's been said, the mosque in discussion isn't even anywhere near Ground Zero. Go ahead and build it - Muslims need a place of worship too, like other religions.

Mad Tony
04-07-10, 00:13
Depends on the place and the amount of people living there. If it's a city full of business and just surrounded by suburbs than I'd say there isn't a need. If it's a city where a lot of people live, then yes there is a need but it depends on the district.

Is it really necessary to have one near Ground Zero ?

Is that really the kind of place one goes to pray ? It's like when you get shopping centres with prayer rooms, who on earth goes out, buys a pair of shoes and then reads the bible or prays ? Seems pointless.Buildings in downtown Manhattan do have apartments you know. :p

Cochrane
04-07-10, 00:14
I should have said that most of the terrorists that want us all dead and are willing to stop at nothing to see it happen, ARE MUSLIMS.

And they are also all men with beards. What does that tell us about bearded men in general?

scion05
04-07-10, 00:15
I know that lol :p But still, one near Ground Zero, kinda insensitive to the wider situation in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm off, too tired to think properly as you've probably gathered :hug:

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:17
I said they got the most air-time. And not unnecessarily.

But I see you realised that and edited accordingly.



I don't have much of a problem with your amended statement.

But you seem to think that all Muslims are of the same mind. Saying that Muslims the world over are being taught to hate America, for example; that is nonsense.

I do not think nor have I stated that ALL Muslims want us dead, but THE MAJORITY of Muslim countries are being taught that America is the enemy.

Abu Ghraib is perhaps not the best comparison, as there were no american christians hurt by that, but I get what you mean. I can certainly understand the feeling: Muslims killed our family members, and now they want to celebrate by building a mosque? But obviously the muslims that are building a mosque are very different ones from the ones who brought the towers down. They lost family members there too, and are not happier about it. The victimís families ultimately have to learn to accept that. I realize that this is probably painful, but not doing so would be extremely unfair towards people who've been through the same.

As for why the mosque is needed there, I think it is deliberately to stir this discussion. By saying, "We are building the mosque here," they are daring everyone else to find an answer to the question "Why not build it here?", one that is better than just "I donít like muslims after 9/11". If nobody finds such an answer (and I donít think there is one), then they have to accept the Islam as equal to all the other faiths that would be allowed to build a church, temple, synagoge or whatever there without any question.

Okay then, so WHY NOT a church, temple, synagogue...WHY does it have to be a mosque? It is just how it is going to be perceived that I find this ridiculous.

Lemmie
04-07-10, 00:18
I do not think nor have I stated that ALL Muslims want us dead, but THE MAJORITY of Muslim countries are being taught that America is the enemy.

Evidence?

Catracoth
04-07-10, 00:20
I do not think nor have I stated that ALL Muslims want us dead, but THE MAJORITY of Muslim countries are being taught that America is the enemy.

Well can you blame them? I mean, from what I've heard about our troops over there following the 9/11 attack, they were practically savages in behaviour, opposed to completing their mission whilst minimising casualties.

I don't think anyone knows the truth behind what we're really in Iraq and other surrounding areas for. Some say oil, others say religious intolerance, etc. It's a big misunderstanding, I think.

But this is rather off topic - let's not turn the discussion into a debate about the aforementioned.

Gregori
04-07-10, 00:23
They don't need to be thought any such thing.

They've been given really good reasons to believe it.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:27
Evidence?
Perhaps I should not have made such a blatant statement, but nevertheless as I said the terrorists that are actually taking extreme action to get rid of us are Muslim.

@Cochrane-That is just an ignorant question.

Dark Lugia 2
04-07-10, 00:28
Its cause those families and many other people believe that muslims and islam support and believe in bombing. Sadly.

Lemmie
04-07-10, 00:29
Perhaps I should not have made such a blatant statement, but never the less as I said the terrorists that are actually taking extreme action to get rid of us are Muslim.

Fair enough, that is by and large true.

However, I don't see what it has to do with this mosque being built, at all.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:31
I mainly feel that it is a stupid decision on the govts. part. If a mosque is built "near" Ground Zero, it is going to be perceived as a slap in the face to all those people who lost families during 9/11. Yes, the Muslims who are here may see it as a Memorial, but most other Americans will not. And like I said, why not a church or any other type of religious building. Why a mosque? Why there?

Thrall
04-07-10, 00:35
If they don't want that built within such a distance then technically shouldn't all and any religious buildings within the same radius also be torn down?

Really, it's one thing to preserve a memorial site but it's another to deny a person their right to worship when the proposed site is a fair distance away.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:37
And I said earlier, I am not at all against them building a mosque. It is the location that I am most peeved about. I feel that it is very unnecessary for it to be there and will cause a great debate and even more drama in the world.

Cochrane
04-07-10, 00:39
I do not think nor have I stated that ALL Muslims want us dead, but THE MAJORITY of Muslim countries are being taught that America is the enemy.
Proof?

Okay then, so WHY NOT a church, temple, synagogue...WHY does it have to be a mosque? It is just how it is going to be perceived that I find this ridiculous.
Who says that these others canít be built there? There is a lot of space two blocks away from Ground Zero. If any other faith wants to build their church there, all they have to do is get a building and start.

@Cochrane-That is just an ignorant question.
Finally you got it!

Catracoth
04-07-10, 00:41
Okay then, so WHY NOT a church, temple, synagogue...WHY does it have to be a mosque? It is just how it is going to be perceived that I find this ridiculous.

Are Muslims not allowed to have a place of worship?

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:41
As I stated earlier, why THERE?

Dark Lugia 2
04-07-10, 00:47
^ Its easier for a lot of people to catch a bus to the city, also eliminates the need for a huge car park (a lot of big mosks outside the city centre have them). There may have not been big enough building sites elsewhere.

Why not there? 2 blocks is far enough. I wouldnt be suprised if people were in outrage if it was built anywhere in New York tbh. -.-

People getting angry at this as if its a bomb factory. Urgh. Place of peaceful worship.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:48
In my opinion it shouldn't be built in NYC or D.C. because of that very reason.

Cochrane
04-07-10, 00:51
In my opinion it shouldn't be built in NYC or D.C. because of that very reason.

Now youíre just being ridiculous.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:53
No, I am taking into account other people's reactions not just looking at the "Let's do it, who cares if other people find it a bad idea and why". I guarantee you that most of the people who live in NYC and D.C (who are not Muslim) are going to be in an uproar if such a thing were to happen.

Dark Lugia 2
04-07-10, 00:53
:/

Catracoth
04-07-10, 00:58
As I stated earlier, why THERE?

An ironic coincidence, but I still fail to see the harm.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 00:59
Then your eyes are obviously not opened wide enough. You do not see the harm or pain it would cause other Americans (who are not Muslim)? Building a Muslim religious building near the site were hundreds of Americans lost their lives due to Muslim terrorist attacks?

Gregori
04-07-10, 00:59
Why not there?

Cochrane
04-07-10, 01:00
No, I am taking into account other people's reactions not just looking at the "Let's do it, who cares if other people find it a bad idea and why".

No, trust me on this one, you are being ridiculous. No mosque at all for all the muslims living in DC and NYC? So I guess you propose the ones that already exist (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=mosque+new+york+city&sll=50.78575,6.05317&sspn=0.010161,0.0159&ie=UTF8&hq=mosque&hnear=New+York&t=h&z=12) should all be closed?

The only way I can understand your point of view is if you lost someone dear in the 9/11 attacks. In that case, I am truly sorry for your loss, but it does not give you special rights over any other american. If you didnít loose someone in the attacks, then frankly, there is no excuse for such narrow-mindedness. The US constitution does not grant any special rights to the victims of terrorist attacks, nor does it remove any from peaceful people just because they have something in common with the terrorists.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 01:03
No, I did not lose anyone, but I do have respect for those that did die and am taking into account their reactions if they were still alive and the reactions of all who did indeed lose people. Until you find me the actual amount of Muslims living in NYC or D.C, I do not want to hear it. The majority of the people living in those places are not Muslim. I think it would be ignorant for them to build a mosque in those places, especially if there are not many Muslim people living there. I feel that if they truly are into their beliefs etc. then move somewhere where there is already a mosque. I have said how I feel on the subject and will not go any further. You may disagree and that is fine, it is your opinion, as this one is mine.

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:04
Building a Muslim religious building near the site were hundreds of Americans lost their lives due to Muslim terrorist attacks?

Now that's what you're doing wrong. What proof do you have that Muslims were behind the 9/11 attack?

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 01:05
Oh,I don't know, the massive amount of news and information that was given on the people behind the attack. :/Those particular Al-Qaeda were Muslims. Look it up. Run by Osama Bin Laden.

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:15
Oh,I don't know, the massive amount of news and information that was given on the people behind the attack.

Oh yeah, because the government can't lie to the people :rolleyes:. To this date, there has been no concrete or reputable evidence that Muslims were behind the attack. What, you think that just because Osama Bin Laden is on the top of the United States' most wanted list that any attack on our country is his or his people's doings? And there you are telling me to open my eyes.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 01:16
Osama Bind Laden is Muslim. His Al-Qaeda organization are Muslims. Oh no no, NVM, you are right. It was just one whole big conspiracy theory that the govt. was behind and they are really from our country.

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:17
Yes, I know this, and your point is?

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 01:18
I just made my point. Al-Qaeda were behind the attacks. They are Muslims. You just agreed with me saying that you know Al-Qaeda are Muslims. They were involved in the attack. Yet you are saying that Muslims were not behind the attack.

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:21
I just made my point. Al-Qaeda were behind the attacks. They are Muslims.

You must have not read my post. What proof do you have that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks? Even if it was Al-Qaeda, you're acting like all Muslims are evil like they are - that's like saying all African American people are gangsters because a percentage of them in some areas dress or act like them. That's quite an unfair generalisation.

Dark Lugia 2
04-07-10, 01:22
Most muslims (definately over 90%, seriously) in the world would agree that muslims in the Al-qaeda are misguided and brainwashed into believing god wills what they do. :)

Them being muslim shouldnt have any significance whatsoever, but we know that those terrorists claim god wants them do do it, and they are musslim. So what we should do is denounce their claim as ridoculous as in over 1600 years such things never happened with muslims. But no, a lot of people stupidly believe the terrorists. Good idea! Not.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 01:23
I am just done, not even going to respond to someone who says that Al-Qaeda were not behind the attacks.

Ward Dragon
04-07-10, 01:24
What proof do you have that Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks?

Al-Qaeda admitted it and bragged about it. Why would they do that if they were innocent and never wanted to hurt anyone?

Anyhow, let's not have this thread degenerate into insults against anyone, any race or any religion :)

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:26
I am just done, not even going to respond to someone who says that Al-Qaeda were not behind the attacks.

Well, your argument is invalid. You're telling me that Al-Qaeda was behind the attack on 9/11 but can't even tell me why you think that and what proof you have. Point being is you don't. No one does. There is no concrete proof who was behind the attack.

For the record, Al-Qaeda is an extremist group who's religion just happens to be Muslim. Oh, what's that? Religion? Yes. Muslim is simply a religion. Would you think all Catholics were evil if Al-Qaeda were followers of Jesus?

Al-Qaeda admitted it and bragged about it. Why would they do that if they were innocent and never wanted to hurt anyone?

To claim credit for causing chaos in the West. I'm sure any terrorist group who wants to dominate the world would want to claim credit for one of the world's most memorable incidents. It wouldn't be the first time. But that doesn't mean Al-Qaeda wouldn't want to hurt anyone. I mean, look who we're talking about here. Look at what they were proven to be responsible for.

Catapharact
04-07-10, 01:27
I mainly feel that it is a stupid decision on the govts. part. If a mosque is built "near" Ground Zero, it is going to be perceived as a slap in the face to all those people who lost families during 9/11. Yes, the Muslims who are here may see it as a Memorial, but most other Americans will not. And like I said, why not a church or any other type of religious building. Why a mosque? Why there?

And the stupidity of this response has to be the biggest slap on the face on American values when you consider the fact that Muslims were amoung the victims of the 9/11 attack. What? Do you think the WTC had only Christian workers in it? Al-Qaeda is an EXTREMIST organization whose members are currently being hunted down by not only NATO but Muslim nations as well including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, etc. etc.

Dark Lugia 2
04-07-10, 01:28
@ ward: you could equally ask why would they make it harder for themselves by making themselves most wanted globally.

But seriously guys... kinda branching into a whole other topic here! lol :p

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:30
And the stupidity of this response has to be the biggest slap on the face on American values when you consider the fact that Muslims were amoung the victims of the 9/11 attack. What? Do you think the WTC had only Christian workers in it? Al-Qaeda is an EXTREMIST organization whose members are currently being hunted down by not only NATO but Muslim nations as well including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, etc. etc.

Umair basically hit the nail on the head here.

Cochrane
04-07-10, 01:31
No, I did not lose anyone, but I do have respect for those that did die and am taking into account their reactions if they were still alive and the reactions of all who did indeed lose people.
No, you are taking into account the reaction of all who arenít muslim. As for those whose feelings you try to take into account, do you have any proof that they actually want that? And even if they do, having lost someone in a tragic terror attack does not prevent one from being an asshole, to be frank. The USA claim to be a free country for everyone, and upset relatives just do not get to change that.

Until you find me the actual amount of Muslims living in NYC or D.C, I do not want to hear it.
Sure: http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/metro/8872_2000.asp estimates 157,714 for the DC metro area and 331,045 for the New York metro area. New York city itself has roughly 150,000. The data is for 2000 only, newer does not seem to be available, but I think it is close enough. There is no data from the US census bureau as it is not allowed to ask about religion, but this is one of the sites it recommends.

The majority of the people living in those places are not Muslim. I think it would be ignorant for them to build a mosque in those places, especially if there are not many Muslim people living there. I feel that if they truly are into their beliefs etc. then move somewhere where there is already a mosque. I have said how I feel on the subject and will not go any further. You may disagree and that is fine, it is your opinion, as this one is mine.
Yeah, this is your opinion, but itís still stupid. There are more than enough muslim people living there to support the establishment of multiple mosques which do exist already and did so before 9/11 as well.

larafan25
04-07-10, 01:33
I say go ahead, it will not cover up the memorial, nor will it overwrite what has happened, nor will it destroy the memories those relatives have of the victims.

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:45
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but who's to say that our own government wasn't behind the attack to make Al-Qaeda look responsible? Before you lot jump at my throat and tell me how insane that is, think about it. It's possible given the fact that some people will do anything to have control over who we think is the enemy.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 01:49
Somehow I knew you had a thought about that.

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:50
It's not something I believe in entirely, but I like to keep my options open. It's a possibility. Then again, it could have been some other group of people that we never would have thought to be behind it.

Catapharact
04-07-10, 01:50
I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but who's to say that our own government wasn't behind the attack to make Al-Qaeda look responsible? Before you lot jump at my throat and tell me how insane that is, think about it. It's possible given the fact that some people will do anything to have control over who we think is the enemy.

No its clear cut that it is Al-Qaeda. The terrorists involved in the attack were all Al-Qaeda members including Atta... One of the most wanted man in this world. Communication printouts were intercepted between the 15 involved in the attack and Osama Bin Ladin. They were under intelligence radar for sometime but suddenly they all disappeared off the grind until 9/11.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 01:51
^Cat. does not believe that Al-Qaeda were behind the attacks because there is supposedly no solid evidence.

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:52
No its clear cut that it is Al-Qaeda. The terrorists involved in the attack were all Al-Qaeda members including Atta... One of the most wanted man in this world. Communication printouts were intercepted between the 15 involved in the attack and Osama Bin Ladin. They were under intelligence radar for sometime but suddenly they all disappeared off the grind until 9/11.

Well who's to say that it wasn't staged? I mean, just because it's on Fox News doesn't mean it's entirely reputable :p. I'm not trying to sound sceptical, but it's a possibility.

^Cat. does not believe that Al-Qaeda were behind the attacks because there is supposedly no solid evidence.

I'm not saying that Al-Qaeda wasn't behind the attacks, but where's the proof that they were?

Ward Dragon
04-07-10, 01:53
To claim credit for causing chaos in the West. I'm sure any terrorist group who wants to dominate the world would want to claim credit for one of the world's most memorable incidents. It wouldn't be the first time. But that doesn't mean Al-Qaeda wouldn't want to hurt anyone. I mean, look who we're talking about here. Look at what they were proven to be responsible for.

It's established that Al-Qaeda has committed horrible atrocities, which you seem to acknowledge. They have claimed responsibility for the attack, they had attacked the WTC prior to 9/11 (they used a truck bomb in 1993), and no one else has been implicated in nearly a decade since the attack. So they have an established pattern of behavior which this attack fits, they have the desire to commit the attack, the attackers were identified and were members, and the group admitted doing it. Why is there doubt as to who did it? :confused:

And the stupidity of this response has to be the biggest slap on the face on American values when you consider the fact that Muslims were amoung the victims of the 9/11 attack. What? Do you think the WTC had only Christian workers in it? Al-Qaeda is an EXTREMIST organization whose members are currently being hunted down by not only NATO but Muslim nations as well including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, etc. etc.

Exactly :tmb: It would be a mistake to attribute Al-Qaeda's goals and actions to all Muslims in the world. We can't ignore legitimate threats for the sake of political correctness, but neither can we discriminate against innocent people just because of their religion.

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:56
Why is there doubt as to who did it?

Just because Al-Qaeda was caught red handed time and time again in the past, doesn't mean they're responsible now. I mean, it's a pretty safe bet that they were, but let's keep our options on the table. It's boy who cried wolf here - AQ was behind numerous other attacks and whatnot, so it's easy to point the finger at them.

Going toward my aforementioned statement, who's to say that our own government, with knowledge of this, didn't stage a blame on Al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks when perhaps it was our own government's doing? I'm not saying that our government did it, but who's to say it isn't a possibility?

Tombraiderx08
04-07-10, 01:56
I support this, as long as it's not the perverse views and practices of the Taliban's Islam that are taught there. And hopefully it can destroy the common misconception that most people of the Islamic faith are ski masked, gun wielding, American hating people.

SamReeves
04-07-10, 01:57
I say no on the mosque, and you don't get your 21 virgins.

Some of you need to knock off the cable access channels when it comes to conspiracies. You can't believe some things, *cough*, I mean anything that is said there.

Killercowz
04-07-10, 01:57
Well who's to say that it wasn't staged? I mean, just because it's on Fox News doesn't mean it's entirely reputable :p.

Well....... it wasn't just on fox.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYg2krLsPB8

EDIT: Oh wait a minute...... I think that was a joke.


Oops! :p

Catracoth
04-07-10, 01:57
And hopefully it can destroy the common misconception that most people of the Islamic faith are ski masked, gun wielding, American hating people.

Agreed. God forbid someone sees someone else walking around with the Koran and assumes it's hollowed out to hold a bomb or something :rolleyes:.

Ward Dragon
04-07-10, 02:09
Just because Al-Qaeda was caught red handed time and time again in the past, doesn't mean they're responsible now. I mean, it's a pretty safe bet that they were, but let's keep our options on the table. It's boy who cried wolf here - AQ was behind numerous other attacks and whatnot, so it's easy to point the finger at them.

But the plane hijackers were members of Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda admitted being responsible for it. I really don't see any benefit to assuming that somebody else was responsible for it without any evidence that such is the case.

Going toward my aforementioned statement, who's to say that our own government, with knowledge of this, didn't stage a blame on Al-Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks when perhaps it was our own government's doing? I'm not saying that our government did it, but who's to say it isn't a possibility?

I'm not even going to argue about whether the government might do that simply because I don't think the government is capable of doing that. If the government was involved, then somebody would have leaked evidence by now. There are also too many civilian witnesses (airport workers who saw the Al-Qaeda members get on the planes or at least saw security footage after the fact, people on the planes talking to their families on cell phones describing what happened before they died, firemen and other rescue workers digging through the rubble, etc.)

Catracoth
04-07-10, 02:13
But the plane hijackers were members of Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda admitted being responsible for it. I really don't see any benefit to assuming that somebody else was responsible for it without any evidence that such is the case.

How do we know that the plane hijackers were members of Al-Qaeda? What told us that?

Also, like I said, Al-Qaeda could just be claiming responsibility to look "bigger and badder." But like I said, it's a larger possibility that it was Al-Qaeda.

I'm not even going to argue about whether the government might do that simply because I don't think the government is capable of doing that. If the government was involved, then somebody would have leaked evidence by now. There are also too many civilian witnesses (airport workers who saw the Al-Qaeda members get on the planes or at least saw security footage after the fact, people on the planes talking to their families on cell phones describing what happened before they died, firemen and other rescue workers digging through the rubble, etc.)

Well then consider that possibility not likely :).

AmericanAssassin
04-07-10, 02:33
I can't for the life of me understand why this would be controversial. It would be near it, not on it. It's really not a problem. :/

Ward Dragon
04-07-10, 02:39
How do we know that the plane hijackers were members of Al-Qaeda? What told us that?

Well, how do you know Osama is a member? For that matter how do you know he even exists? Some things have enough evidence that they should simply be taken as fact due to how unlikely it is for them to be false (although if evidence came out contradicting it, then of course reevaluate the situation, but no point worrying about that unless such evidence did come out).

AmericanAssassin
04-07-10, 02:41
Some things have enough evidence that they should simply be taken as fact due to how unlikely it is for them to be false.

I am definitely using that in the future. Sooooo true. :tmb:

Catracoth
04-07-10, 02:43
Well, how do you know Osama is a member? For that matter how do you know he even exists?

Well, to be fair, I never said that he was a member of Al-Qaeda. It's just perceived that he is. For all we know, he could be dead. There's photographical evidence that he exists/ed.

Ward Dragon
04-07-10, 02:52
Well, to be fair, I never said that he was a member of Al-Qaeda. It's just perceived that he is. For all we know, he could be dead. There's photographical evidence that he exists/ed.

There's photographic evidence that Hannibal Lecter exists too :p I do think Osama exists and is a member of Al-Qaeda. I'm just trying to make the point that if you open up doubt for anything that you haven't directly seen yourself, then there's no reason to believe anything. It's just as likely that anti-gun lobbyists staged the attempted assassination on Reagan to get the Brady Act passed as it is that the government was behind 9/11 for an excuse to go after Al-Qaeda (which is to say both situations are so unlikely that they aren't worth wasting time on).

patriots88888
04-07-10, 02:56
Sounds to me like nothing more than playful semantics. It's the same exact principle that defines the difference between criminal court and civil court. In civil court, all you need is a preponderance of evidence... something is more likely than not. The same can be applied here with this as far as I'm concerned.

Apathetic
04-07-10, 03:11
I fail to understand how this is controversial. I mean, I understand that no one really knows what culture was behind the 9/11 attack, but to blindly follow other people's beliefs that Muslims were responsible is ignorance and arrogance at best.

Like it's been said, the mosque in discussion isn't even anywhere near Ground Zero. Go ahead and build it - Muslims need a place of worship too, like other religions.

Best post I've read yet. :p

aktrekker
04-07-10, 04:19
It's not just a mosque, it's a cultural center. It's 12 stories and has a swimming pool. This is not about worship.
And it is near ground zero.

While details of the funding for the $100 million complex just two blocks from the former World Trade Center site remain sketchy...
I would say build it farther away. And tone it down, make it just a mosque. The cultural center should be separate. I'm not that familiar with Islam, but wouldn't having a cultural center (with swimming pool) combined with the mosque be sacrilegious?

Beans-Bot
04-07-10, 06:22
I say no on the mosque, and you don't get your 21 virgins.



Why not?

I have no problem with the mosque/community center, for the record. Not all Muslims are terrorists, so them participating in their religion near the site of a tragedy that involved a tangential sect of Islam shouldn't be an issue. The OK City bombings tangentially involved Christianity, too, but nobody opposes churches being built near there.

Goose
04-07-10, 06:52
Was there a mosque there to begin with? If so build it again, if not, im sure local muslims will survive if they just rebuilt similar stuff that was there before 9/11.


Now thatís bull****. There are plenty of terrorist organisations that claim to follow different faiths or none faith at all, or some different belief system (communism is still surprisingly popular). Also, your statement doesnít prove anything. Not all americans committed atrocities in Abu Ghraib, but all who did there were americans. What does that say about americans in general? Nothing.

If you look at the list of designated terror groups, about 70% are muslim organisations, thats where the statement originates mostly.

knightgames
04-07-10, 07:14
Why not?

I have no problem with the mosque/community center, for the record. Not all Muslims are terrorists, so them participating in their religion near the site of a tragedy that involved a tangential sect of Islam shouldn't be an issue. The OK City bombings tangentially involved Christianity, too, but nobody opposes churches being built near there.

Actually OK City bombing and Tim McVeigh had no bearing on religion (at least as a motivating factor, though I understand he was christian).... unlike the perpetrators of the 9/11 calamity. They themselves claim their affiliation to Islam. It was because of their warped view of Islam that they did what they did.

This is an old topic, so I don't remember everything regarding the aspirations of this community center/mosque. If they intend to employ this facility as a means of out reach to the community, I'd think there are a few other places that could be better utilized than 2 blocks from WTC1. There's nothing technically wrong about it, but symbolically? Symbolically it's a big [mod edit: do not circumvent the censor] YOU to the tradgedy, and those involved.

I don't remember a huge outcry from the Muslim community toward the perpetrators when 9/11 happened. Where was the condemnation? I heard a lot of excuses trying to extricate themselves from these terrorists who claim to share the same religion. When it came time to show support for your country and take a stand against terrorism all that was heard was crickets.

But now ten years later a community center/mosque is wanted 2 blocks away? I can't understand how those designing this can't see it as rather insensative.... if not insulting. If one of the desires for this community center/mosque is to improve relations, then couldn't that be performed elsewhere?

How many blocks are there in NYC.... and there HAS to be a mosque in this area? I wonder what the demographic for the muslim population is in lower Manhatten. I know there was a decent sized population in Brooklyn when I frequented NYC in the 80s - 90s. Now? I'm not sure

Ultimately it doesn't affect me. Freedom to worship as you chose is fundamentally important anywhere in the world, but I can't help thinking it's rather insensative to have one there.

Mad Tony
04-07-10, 11:06
You're not one of those ridiculous 9/11 "truthers" are you Catacroth? I agree that not all terrorists are Muslims and most Muslims aren't extremists like the ones who carried out the attacks though, but that's more common sense than anything.

Cochrane
04-07-10, 11:39
If you look at the list of designated terror groups, about 70% are muslim organisations, thats where the statement originates mostly.

True, but you have to look at the context of the conversation. CiaKonwerski is desperately trying to blame the 9/11 attacks on islam in general, in order to justify his belief that muslims should not have the same rights that all other americans enjoy within the nation’s largest city and the capital. Clearly his justification is incorrect, because if it were true the remaining 30% could be considered reason to ban many other peaceful organisations from the US.

Punaxe
04-07-10, 12:42
If these plans were for a mosque to be built on the site, I would say it was a bad idea. Not because I blame Islam for terrorism, not because it would mean "giving in", but simply because, as also seen in this thread, there's too much controversy, and too much people clearly disagree. There should not be anything on that site that pertains only to a particular type of people; no church, no mosque, no museum of Dadaist art, no scouting club.

This being two blocks away for me takes away all reasonable arguments against building it. It is clear however that people are still upset about it, albeit unreasonably. What the city decides to do with that is up to them, but personally, I wouldn't listen to unreasonable arguments. If it can't be built two blocks away from 9/11, why could it be built in the city of 9/11? The country of 9/11? The continent?

Love2Raid
04-07-10, 12:44
^

Bravo. I agree with you 100%. :tmb:

Catracoth
04-07-10, 14:14
I'm just trying to make the point that if you open up doubt for anything that you haven't directly seen yourself, then there's no reason to believe anything.

Well, with that said, I could go ahead and argue that if you didn't see an Al-Qaeda member hijack the plane...:whi: but that wouldn't get us anywhere :p.

Best post I've read yet. :p

Just speaking the truth :p.

You're not one of those ridiculous 9/11 "truthers" are you Catacroth?

Oh good Lord, no.

Mad Tony
04-07-10, 14:24
Oh good Lord, no.So who do you think carried out the attacks?

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 14:29
True, but you have to look at the context of the conversation. CiaKonwerski is desperately trying to blame the 9/11 attacks on islam in general, in order to justify his belief that muslims should not have the same rights that all other americans enjoy within the nation’s largest city and the capital. Clearly his justification is incorrect, because if it were true the remaining 30% could be considered reason to ban many other peaceful organisations from the US.

Firstly, I never said that all Islamic people are to blame. Please tell me where I stated so. I do believe however as I have said countless times that building a mosque is most likely going to be perceived by the public very negatively (except for Muslims most likely). None of you are caring about what other will think, you are all only looking at what the Muslims who were lost during 9/11 families would think, which most likely would love it. However I guarantee you that the other people of several other religions whose families were lost are going to see this as a way of saying that it was okay for what the terrorists did. I have no problem with Islamic people and I have never said that I did. I appreciate all cultures and religions but this is just ridiculous. I honestly do not know how anyone can agree with this. And with the govt. desperately trying to build it in that specific area seems very ignorant of them because I am sure that they know there will be plenty of backlash. I do not think that any sort of Religious building should be put there but either a memorial or a rebuilding of the twin towers. As I have asked countless times, why do they specifically want a mosque? As many of you have said, countless religions were killed during the attack, so why not a synagogue, temple, church, etc. I want to know why specifically a mosque, and why they want to put it in that area. And yes, maybe it did come off as a bit harsh when I said that a mosque should not be built in D.C or NYC. If there is one to be built there, then I would just appreciate it if it were build further away form Ground Zero. People keep saying two blocks two blocks, but that is still close and is still going to spark a major debate. Bringing anything into the picture that will relate or give people that sense of remembering 9/11 in a bad way is a terrible decision on the govts. part. "On the freedom to pray whenever, wherever, and whoever you want to pray to as long as nobody gets hurt in the process." But the fact remains that 3,000 Americans were murdered in the name of Allah. The plan to celebrate the mosque's grand opening on the atrocity's 10th anniversary is offensive. I still agree with many other people who believe that this nation was founded under God, not Allah and I do not think that putting a mosque up is a good idea at least not in that area. And once again I will ask the question, what if you were Muslim and the Americans decided to put up a church beside Abu Ghraib? What would you feel if you were Muslim?

Legend 4ever
04-07-10, 14:29
How does two blocks from ground zero equal ground zero?

Catapharact
04-07-10, 14:56
It seems that the idea AGAINST building the mosque TWO BLOCKS away from the site all seem like just misguided lame attempts at citywide trolling. If you agree that peaceful Muslims have NO affiliation with the terrorists of 9/11 then allowing them a place of worship that is being built NOT ON THE SITE but away from it (because driving 45 min. for prayers away to the nearest mosque 5 times a day is just ridiculous when you have to keep with your work schedual and everything) shouldn't be an issue at all. Its not like Osama is building his Penthouse there for his hoes or something!

And I am surprised that the people living in NY think that there haven't been any condemnation for the attacks given by America Muslims, when there was a fatwa issued by leading scholars in the U.S. against terrorism.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/02/uk-fatwa-terrorism.html

Like I said... Trolling.

Mikky
04-07-10, 15:04
Oh, my God. People so need to grow up. How ridiculous! :rolleyes:

Cochrane
04-07-10, 15:07
Firstly, I never said that all Islamic people are to blame. Please tell me where I stated so.
Oh please. Of course you didnít state it outright, but you clearly seem to believe it. You already said that most muslims are brought up to hate america and that all terrorists are muslims (I can fetch you the precise quotes if you want). You also said that it should not be allowed to build a mosque in the largest city of the US and in the capital (you later retracted some of the statements, of course). You do not say that all muslims are to blame, but to me it seems as if you are blaming them.

I do believe however as I have said countless times that building a mosque is most likely going to be perceived by the public very negatively (except for Muslims most likely). None of you are caring about what other will think, you are all only looking at what the Muslims who were lost during 9/11 families would think, which most likely would love it. However I guarantee you that the other people of several other religions whose families were lost are going to see this as a way of saying that it was okay for what the terrorists did. I have no problem with Islamic people and I have never said that I did. I appreciate all cultures and religions but this is just ridiculous. I honestly do not know how anyone can agree with this.
True, I do not care about what the families of 9/11 victims think, and I will not apologize for that. Refusal to build a mosque is not going to bring their loved ones back. Modern democracy, as first successfully implemented in the US, is based on freedom and equality of all. If you take this attack as a reason to treat any particular person or group of people worse than all others, then the freedom is gone or at least greatly reduced (which, as it happens, is exactly what the terrorists wanted to begin with). And yes, this applies even if it is "only" the muslims being affected.

Donít think I am saying any of this is out of a particular sympathy for that faith. I still think the world would be a better place without any religion at all. This is a concern of freedom, something the US used to hold in quite high regard a while back. I would and will support any other peaceful religion that wanted to do something similar as well.

And with the govt. desperately trying to build it in that specific area seems very ignorant of them because I am sure that they know there will be plenty of backlash. I do not think that any sort of Religious building should be put there but either a memorial or a rebuilding of the twin towers. As I have asked countless times, why does the govt. specifically want a mosque? As many of you have said, countless religions were killed during the attack, so why not a synagogue, temple, church, etc. I want to know why specifically a mosque, and why they want to put it in that area. And yes, maybe it did come off as a bit harsh when I said that a mosque should not be built in D.C or NYC. If there is one to be built there, then I would just appreciate it if it were build further away form Ground Zero. People keep saying two blocks two blocks, but that is still close and is still going to spark a major debate.
Well, if you actually bothered to check the facts, many of your concerns could be reduced. For example, the government has nothing to do with this. This is private people building a church, which is the way it has always been in the US. Unlike many other countries, the US government specifically stays out of that. Synagogues, churches and whatever can be built there under the same conditions. St Paulís church is directly opposite Ground Zero, in fact.

The major debate is already here. Why fear it? I think it is time that the US have this major debate about how much they are willing to accept islam as part of the american culture after 9/11. In fact, it might be overdue.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 15:10
Seeing as how you do not even live in the U.S and you are not currently living under the conditions etc. that are currently going on over here etc. I do not want to hear your side of it because you live in a totally different country. If you were over here I am sure your opinion would change, greatly. I do not expect you to understand.

Catapharact
04-07-10, 15:13
Seeing as how you do not even live in the U.S and you are not currently living under the conditions etc. that are currently going on over here etc. I do not want to hear your side of it because you live in a totally different country. If you were over here I am sure your opinion would change, greatly.

If a Jewish friend of mines who lives in NY with her single mom (who happens to support Israel's counterattacks at Hamas strongly and firmly) agrees with the idea that a mosque should be allowed to be built on that given site then I am sorry, but your prespective on the matter seems... Meh.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 15:20
Oh please. Of course you didnít state it outright, but you clearly seem to believe it. You already said that most muslims are brought up to hate america and that all terrorists are muslims (I can fetch you the precise quotes if you want). You also said that it should not be allowed to build a mosque in the largest city of the US and in the capital (you later retracted some of the statements, of course). You do not say that all muslims are to blame, but to me it seems as if you are blaming them.


True, I do not care about what the families of 9/11 victims think, and I will not apologize for that. Refusal to build a mosque is not going to bring their loved ones back. Modern democracy, as first successfully implemented in the US, is based on freedom and equality of all. If you take this attack as a reason to treat any particular person or group of people worse than all others, then the freedom is gone or at least greatly reduced (which, as it happens, is exactly what the terrorists wanted to begin with). And yes, this applies even if it is "only" the muslims being affected.

Donít think I am saying any of this is out of a particular sympathy for that faith. I still think the world would be a better place without any religion at all. This is a concern of freedom, something the US used to hold in quite high regard a while back. I would and will support any other peaceful religion that wanted to do something similar as well.


Well, if you actually bothered to check the facts, many of your concerns could be reduced. For example, the government has nothing to do with this. This is private people building a church, which is the way it has always been in the US. Unlike many other countries, the US government specifically stays out of that. Synagogues, churches and whatever can be built there under the same conditions. St Paulís church is directly opposite Ground Zero, in fact.

The major debate is already here. Why fear it? I think it is time that the US have this major debate about how much they are willing to accept islam as part of the american culture after 9/11. In fact, it might be overdue.

As I said above, 3,000 people were murdered under the name of Allah, building a Mosque for people to worship Allah two blocks away from where 3,000 people were killed in the name of ALLAH is ignorant.

lara c. fan
04-07-10, 15:22
Seeing as how you do not even live in the U.S and you are not currently living under the conditions etc. that are currently going on over here etc. I do not want to hear your side of it because you live in a totally different country. If you were over here I am sure your opinion would change, greatly. I do not expect you to understand.

So because we don't live in your country, everything we say is invalid?

I will remember that for the next time you do anything like that.

Cochrane
04-07-10, 15:23
As I said above, 3,000 people were murdered under the name of Allah, building a Mosque for people to worship Allah two blocks away from where 3,000 people were killed in the name of ALLAH is ignorant.

See? You do blame all muslims. Just like I said.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 15:23
Considering you were not here when all of this happened, and you are currently not living under the extreme conditions of our current President, then no, I would not expect a lot of you to truly understand and actually feel what I feel.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 15:24
See? You do blame all muslims. Just like I said.

Did I just say that? You are deliberately taking everything I say out of context.

EDIT: Sorry for double post.

Catapharact
04-07-10, 15:24
As I said above, 3,000 people were murdered under the name of Allah, building a Mosque for people to worship Allah two blocks away from where 3,000 people were killed in the name of ALLAH is ignorant.

And Allah will see to it that these morons get their due! One way ticket down to burnsville. The Nazis slaughtered millions of Jews with the full fledged support of the Catholic Church. Should I assume that every Catholic Church that is now being built in NY city supports the holocaust? Or Neo Nazis for that matter? Are you even putting any thoughts in your arguments anymore?

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 15:25
I am seeing the realistic side of things. And how many years ago was the Holocaust exactly? Considering this just happened 9 years ago, it is a different story.

Catapharact
04-07-10, 15:27
I am seeing the realistic side of things.

There is nothing realistic about your points; Just skewed opinions that have no merit to them and no basis. You don't want to live an ever strong growing peaceful Muslim population in NY? Fine. You can live in isolation. But your points thus far have no basis to them.

lara c. fan
04-07-10, 15:28
I am seeing the realistic side of things. And how many years ago was the Holocaust exactly? Considering this just happened 9 years ago, it is a different story.

Time does not make a difference in the thing we are discussing right now.
And besides, if you insist on following up the argument of that, a lot can change in 9 years.

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 15:28
Not as much as what can change in 40 or more years.

Cochrane
04-07-10, 15:29
Did I just say that? You are deliberately taking everything I say out of context.

What you said was this:
As I said above, 3,000 people were murdered under the name of Allah, building a Mosque for people to worship Allah two blocks away from where 3,000 people were killed in the name of ALLAH is ignorant.

And I quoted all of it. What more context do you need? The statement where you said that you donít blame all muslims? I am fully aware of that. I just think that you are lying, and that this post above proves it.

lara c. fan
04-07-10, 15:30
Not as much as they change in 40 or more years.

OK, let's zoom ahead that amount of time. What do you think Muslims (As your point carries on with labeling them all as bad) are doing now?

CiaKonwerski
04-07-10, 15:31
I DO NOT BLAME ALL MUSLIMS! How many times do you I have to tell you all this!? You know what? I am done, done. Not even going to continue this discussion with any of you, because apparently I am the ONLY one who feels this way on this forum. I have said that it is a bad idea IMO, my thoughts are from now on remaining to myself.

Legend 4ever
04-07-10, 16:26
You know what? I am done, done.

Good, you should be.
-----------------------------

I think this is the issue of people just being people and it confirms that human nature is evil. If we really tried to see the things for what they really are, we would not see any problem in their feat. It's simply ridiculous. Being religious does not mean you are an extremist and a murderer. Also, saying that they (Al-Qaeda) operate based on their religious beliefs shows that one discriminates against Islam and its followers.

Ward Dragon
04-07-10, 16:46
Alright, let's drop the argument :) This is understandably a very emotional topic and of course people sometimes overstate their position when in an argument so let's leave it at that for now.

More information I just found about this proposed building:


Plans for the Cordoba House include a performing arts center, swimming pool, culinary school, child care facilities and worship space.

It would provide 150 full-time jobs, 500 part-time jobs and an investment in more than $100 million in infrastructure in the city's financial district, according to Daisy Khan, spokeswoman for the Cordoba House.

Khan's husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, one of the project's sponsors, said he understood the pain that people have about 9/11. But he said his community and congregation were among those that died in the attacks.

"We have condemned the terror of 9/11," he said. "We have worked to ensure that our mosques are not recruiting grounds for terrorists."
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said in a statement that by supporting the multi-faith community and cultural center, the board "sent a clear message that our city is one that promotes diversity and tolerance."
...
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said there were no security concerns about building a mosque in the area.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/25/community-board-votes-support-plans-mosque-cultural-center-near-nycs-ground/

I tried to sort through people's objections and in my opinion the valid ones were that part of this building would replace a historic landmark building (I don't think they should knock down and build over a building from the 1800's) and that this Imam Rauf guy has made a few statements claiming that WW2 bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki paved the way for 9/11 to happen. However the guy also seems to have condemned 9/11 many times and claims that the cultural center is meant to show that moderate Muslims are American too and do not support terrorism so without any other evidence against him I'm willing to chalk his statement up to an attempted historical analysis rather than being an apologist. If the building does not break any zoning laws (which it might or might not, I really don't know) then I think it should be built and if it did end up being a security risk then we could act on it then, but there's no strong reason to think it will be based upon the information I have right now.

Draco
04-07-10, 16:56
The vast majority of terrorist attacks on America were done by caucasian non muslim Americans. Embassies notwithstanding.

Catracoth
05-07-10, 03:06
So who do you think carried out the attacks?

I haven't the foggiest.

How does two blocks from ground zero equal ground zero?

That's what I was wondering.

Tommy123
05-07-10, 03:37
Considering it's not even that near, I'd go ahead and put it.

same here

Tyrannosaurus
05-07-10, 07:24
Can we erect a statue near ground zero of a horned Muhammed stomping on the world trade center as if Godzilla? If we can do that, then I won't protest building a mosque.

Alpharaider47
05-07-10, 07:28
Not to take sides here, but if it was a church being built a lot of you would have nothing to say right now :o

Not every Islamic person is a terrorist. Sure some are, but should we allow a small few to ruin our impression of the larger picture?

knightgames
05-07-10, 08:56
Again. This doesn't affect me. I don't live in NYC and I have no real opinion for or against the mosque/community center. If it was something I was sure would bring unity, I'd place the first brick myself.

I sometimes am a stickler for impressions or appearances, not in the vane way (social status), but in consideration of others, their feelings, and hopefully with the ability of improving others lives. While I and the rational world realize that mainstream Islam has nothing to do with these destructors of the faith, the terrorists themselves align their deeds with Islam/Muslim faith. And since these cretins have aligned themselves with the Muslim religion, placing a mosque on their greatest sucess would be a medal of honor for them. Knowing this, then why give them the tertiary benifit of the location.

Why would the leaders/planners pushing for this not see it? As I said in my last post it just seems insensative.

Most rational people know that 1.2 billion people aren't terrorists because they follow Allah, just like most rational people know 1 billion christians aren't planned parenthood bombers. But allowing the mosque/community center so close to the 9/11 plot could be seen by some as tacitly giving a victory to those who performed such atrocities.

I lost someone in a drunk driving murder 21 years ago last month. Even after all this time I think I'd be upset if a liquor store opened on the corner it happened. Illogical? Yeah..... but still a real and valid emotion. People have the right to be upset about this despite whether they have the ability to express it rationally.

That said...... and THIS PART is the more important over my opinions We could turn the proverbial coin and say to the bastids. "Sure. You hit our homeland. You tried to instill fear, hatred and disunity. But we are better. We come together in crisis and are all the stronger for it. So you terrorists.... warpers of peace.... stunters of social growth.... we'll allow you your private celebration to your dreamed victory. But remember, through this we will gain understanding and peace with our fellow citizens and the bond forged will not break because of your ignorance. Stronger, we will ALL fight against what you hold sacred untill your ideas are so insignificant that you will become extinct."

What I WISH would happen should the center be built.

Andyroo
05-07-10, 10:20
A mosque is nothing, over here they're trying to create an islamic state.

Librarian
05-07-10, 13:36
By 'here' you surely don't mean Australia?

takamotosan
05-07-10, 17:18
2 blocks away seems fine with me. If it were like, RIGHT NEXT to ground zero, there would be problems.

MsRedFoxx
05-07-10, 17:35
They're tryin to make England an Islamic state too and make England follow Sharia law. :mad: I hate the ones who are tryin to force their culture down our throats and who refuse to follow the traditions of the country they chose to live in.

LauraC
05-07-10, 18:06
They're tryin to make England an Islamic state too and make England follow Sharia law. :mad: I hate the ones who are tryin to force their culture down our throats and who refuse to follow the traditions of the country they chose to live in.

This reeks suspiciously of racism and discrimination :/ I agree that some people are always pushing their beliefs on you, but don't Jehova's witnesses do that too? The only religions who don't are HindoeÔsm and Boedism. Besides, some people don't have a choice about the country they live in. Political fugitives, for example.

And like someone already pointed out (sorry, it was a few pages back, can't remember who), no-one would be bothered by building a church there. I know people are still hurt by the consequences of the 9/11 attack, but that's no excuse to let narrowmindedness and racism conquer society. Look at what good that did in the 1940s... People are just looking for someone to blame, and they shouldn't take it out on innocent people.
This is why I'm an atheist, religion is so messy;)

lara c. fan
05-07-10, 18:10
They're tryin to make England an Islamic state too and make England follow Sharia law. :mad: I hate the ones who are tryin to force their culture down our throats and who refuse to follow the traditions of the country they chose to live in.

Eh? I haven't noticed anything of the sort.

Catapharact
05-07-10, 19:02
A mosque is nothing, over here they're trying to create an islamic state.

They're tryin to make England an Islamic state too and make England follow Sharia law. :mad: I hate the ones who are tryin to force their culture down our throats and who refuse to follow the traditions of the country they chose to live in.

Remind me to send a memo to your future employers (who have a high probablility of being Muslims ;)) to give you the same unbaised outlook that you are giving the Muslim community ;).

aktrekker
05-07-10, 19:48
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1687576.ece
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004171195_britain08.html

lara c. fan
05-07-10, 19:50
So the sharia courts only affect Muslims?

Catapharact
05-07-10, 19:53
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1687576.ece
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004171195_britain08.html

To quote from your own article:

"Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law," he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious ó it's just a cultural thing."

Its clear that these guys aren't interested in any sort of mediation whatsoever as dictated by the state. The concept in which Sharia law is applied in cases like these is only in MEDIATION purposes only. Heck Jewish and christian mediation systems are already there... Which I will accept. But if any sort of dispute ranges away from a simple family dispute to criminal charges (like stabbing as mentioned in the article) then the state needs to get involved.

Cochrane
05-07-10, 20:11
The problem I see with religious mediation schemes is that someone may be forced to take part in them and as a result be worse off than they would under normal law. Sure, they are all voluntary, but I can easily imagine that some people may be urged to go that route instead of a more neutral one by their families and the like, even if it isn’t in their best interest.

I guess one would have to see whether that really happens in practice, though.

Mad Tony
05-07-10, 20:14
I'm fine with Muslims living here (why would it be a problem?) but I think the whole Sharia courts thing is a very bad idea. One law for all please.

Of course, the Muslims aren't to blame for the introduction of Sharia courts here.

Punaxe
05-07-10, 20:22
I remember one article explaining that that indeed does happen. Some of these mediation courts' proposed solutions go against the very laws that unfortunately make these solutions binding (i.e. the UK law, if I correctly recall another article). Particularly women would be the ones forced to accept such a 'ruling' against their will, and particularly women would be at the receiving end of many a penalty under sharia law - which they would not have gotten should the ruling have taken place in a UK court.

I am fine with mediation an sich, but creating different courts - mediative or otherwise - for different religions and thus different people is very much against the principles of equality, which is why I do not think they should exist. As Mad Tony said: one law for all.

Catapharact
05-07-10, 20:26
The problem I see with religious mediation schemes is that someone may be forced to take part in them and as a result be worse off than they would under normal law. Sure, they are all voluntary, but I can easily imagine that some people may be urged to go that route instead of a more neutral one by their families and the like, even if it isnít in their best interest.

I guess one would have to see whether that really happens in practice, though.


I remember one article explaining that that indeed does happen. Some of these mediation courts' proposed solutions go against the very laws that unfortunately make these solutions binding (i.e. the UK law, if I correctly recall another article). Particularly women would be the ones forced to accept such a 'ruling' against their will, and particularly women would be at the receiving end of many a penalty under sharia law - which they would not have gotten should the ruling have taken place in a UK court.

I am fine with mediation an sich, but creating different courts - mediative or otherwise - for different religions and thus different people is very much against the principles of equality, which is why I do not think they should exist. As Mad Tony said: one law for all.

Valid points and all I can say is I agree completely.

aktrekker
06-07-10, 00:07
Just in case you didn't make it all the way to that last link.

LONDON ó The Archbishop of Canterbury called Thursday for Britain to adopt aspects of Islamic Shariah law alongside the existing legal system. His speech set off a storm of opposition among politicians, lawyers and others, including some Muslims.

The archbishop, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, said in a speech and a BBC radio interview that the introduction of Shariah in family law was "unavoidable." But he said such "constructive accommodation" should not deprive Muslims of their right to take their cases to the existing court system.
...
Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi, 36, a lawyer who is a rising star in the Conservative Party and one of its most influential Muslim figures, issued a statement calling the archbishop's remarks "unhelpful."

"Of course the important principle is one of equality, and we must ensure that people of all backgrounds and religions are treated equally before the law," she said.

"But let's be absolutely clear: All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

GlaÁon
06-07-10, 04:43
remind me to send a memo to your future employers (who have a high probablility of being muslims ;)) to give you the same unbaised outlook that you are giving the muslim community ;).

fail.

Ward Dragon
06-07-10, 15:20
I agree with this person (quoted a few posts ago):

Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi, 36, a lawyer who is a rising star in the Conservative Party and one of its most influential Muslim figures, issued a statement calling the archbishop's remarks "unhelpful."

"Of course the important principle is one of equality, and we must ensure that people of all backgrounds and religions are treated equally before the law," she said.

"But let's be absolutely clear: All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

If someone is a citizen of the country, then they are fully entitled to all of the rights that country gives to its citizens. Their rights should not be ignored just because they are a particular religion and their family/friends/whoever decides that the rights don't apply to them. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to take away the rights of other people who share that religion, which seems to happen under sharia law as people (usually women) are heavily pressured into giving up their rights and making agreements which are unfavorable or even harmful to themselves.

Catapharact
06-07-10, 17:50
fail.

How so? I am not going to apologize for making a remark based on growing trends. Muslims abroad that have had a healthy diverse environment to grow in end up completing collage and univesity and are most likely to have high powered positions. American Muslim women, contrary to stereotype, are more likely than American Muslim men to have college and post-graduate degrees.

Why? Because Islam in its true form does not discriminate based on little things like gender and race. Its amazing how a little conviction when used in a positive manner, can help you achieve huge things.

It saddens me that people quickly turn on active and productive members of society where as the crazy extremists are usually ignored and unmonitored until its too late. Which offcourse then translates to more persecution of innocent people.

Punaxe
06-07-10, 22:02
Are you saying that immigrants are more likely to complete higher education than natives, especially in fact, those immigrants whose culture clashes so much with that of their new host country?

Ward Dragon
06-07-10, 22:07
Are you saying that immigrants are more likely to complete higher education than natives, especially in fact, those immigrants whose culture clashes so much with that of their new host country?

I'm taking a pure guess here, but it makes sense to me that people moving into a new country would want to take advantage of all of the new opportunities now available to them, whereas people who were born there may take these things for granted and not be as motivated. That's just going by my rather limited experience where I live so I understand it could be different elsewhere.

Catapharact
06-07-10, 22:11
Are you saying that immigrants are more likely to complete higher education than natives, especially in fact, those immigrants whose culture clashes so much with that of their new host country?

Actually no What I am saying that they are under more pressure to get a university degree and higher education since (for most immigrants anyway) their whole purpose of comming to another country is usually to build a better life for themselves.

But you are right when you say that a great number of immigrant families find it hard to adopt to the environment of their host country and that ends up creating a communication barrier and an isolationist mentality (i.e. communities choosing to mingle with people of their own cultural background) which is totally counter productive. That is why I said that Muslims, who have had the opportunity to grow up in a culturally diverse envrionment end up with high power positions.

Punaxe
06-07-10, 22:12
I'm taking a pure guess here, but it makes sense to me that people moving into a new country would want to take advantage of all of the new opportunities now available to them, whereas people who were born there may take these things for granted and not be as motivated. That's just going by my rather limited experience where I live so I understand it could be different elsewhere.

It certainly is different here.

(...) Whereas 47% of native Dutch pupils follow the two highest tracks, the figure for Turks and Moroccans is less than half this (22%). Students of Surinamese and Antillean origin occupy a midway position, with between 30% and 32% participating in these tracks. (...) In addition to being overrepresented in the lower educational tracks in secondary education, migrant students also more often repeat years than native Dutch pupils. Moreover, migrant students also have much higher drop-out rates than native Dutch students at the different levels of secondary education. (...) Non-Western migrant students are less successful in higher education than native Dutch students; they more often experience delays or even drop out without obtaining a degree. Whereas around 70-73% of native Dutch students graduate after seven years, only 50-55% of non-Western migrant students graduate in the same period. (...)
Et cetera. PDF source (http://www.scp.nl/dsresource?objectid=21684&type=org).

Actually no What I am saying that they are under more pressure to get a university degree and higher education since (for most immigrants anyway) their whole purpose of comming to another country is usually to build a better life for themselves.

But you are right when you say that a great number of immigrant families find it hard to adopt to the environment of their host country and that ends up creating a communication barrier and an isolationist mentality (i.e. communities choosing to mingle with people of their own cultural background) which is totally counter productive. That is why I said that Muslims, who have had the opportunity to grow up in a culturally diverse envrionment end up with high power positions.

I'm not going to take your word for it, and have to ask for a source indicating that immigrants are in fact feeling more pressure to actively build a better life as opposed to 'feeding off the system' as is the general view of things, and a source linking culturally diverse environments (the Muslim environment being one of them) to high power positions. One source doing both is fine too.

Catapharact
06-07-10, 22:13
It certainly is different here.


Et cetera. PDF source (http://www.scp.nl/dsresource?objectid=21684&type=org).

That is indeed a shocker. Goodness.

Catapharact
06-07-10, 22:20
Oops! Sorry double post.



I'm not going to take your word for it, and have to ask for a source indicating that immigrants are in fact feeling more pressure to actively build a better life as opposed to 'feeding off the system' as is the general view of things, and a source linking culturally diverse environments (the Muslim environment being one of them) to high power positions. One source doing both is fine too.

You demand it, I get it for you ;):

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/483/muslim-americans

Punaxe
06-07-10, 22:44
Your conclusions seem to be a bit too coloured than the linked report would allow. While the position of Muslim immigrants in America is clearly better than in Europe, the report says nothing about culturally diverse environments leading to high power positions. Overall, the Muslim community seems to be slightly behind, but mostly on par with the rest of the population.

(...) Compared with the general public, somewhat fewer Muslims have finished high school and considerably fewer own their home, but just as many have earned college degrees and attended graduate school. (...) Among adults nationwide, 44% report household incomes of $50,000 or more annually, as do 41% of Muslim American adults. At the highest end of the income scale, Muslim Americans are about as likely to report household incomes of $100,000 or more as are members of the general public (16% for Muslims compared with 17% among the public). Roughly a third of both Muslim Americans (35%) and adults nationwide (33%) report household incomes of less than $30,000 annually. (...)

About actively building a better life, not much is said. They do believe that it works, but that does not mean that they are also doing so - indeed the figures above seem to indicate that no significantly more or less effort is being put into it.

(...) If anything, Muslim Americans are more likely than the general public to believe that hard work is the path to success: 71% of Muslim Americans say that “most people who want to get ahead can make it if they work hard.” A somewhat smaller percentage of the general public (64%) agrees with this statement. (...)

Good figures, yes, but not what you made of them. Muslims abroad do not automatically end up completing college or univesity or being most likely to end up in high positions. Any role that cultural diversity might have in this all is unclear.

Cochrane
06-07-10, 23:00
That is indeed a shocker. Goodness.

The trend is similar in Germany. I am not sure about the dutch situation, but most muslim migrants in Germany were hired in Turkey in the 1950s and 1960s as cheap workers during the economic growth of the area. This meant that they had, on average, bad educational backgrounds and low income. Sadly, our school system is rather broken and makes it very difficult for people with little money and/or parents with not much education themselves to rise much above that layer.

Love2Raid
06-07-10, 23:16
I see the topic has changed, lol. Punaxe is right, the number of non-Western immigrants advancing to University in Holland is quite low, BUT it is increasing. I think religion doesn't have anything to do with this, it's all about cultural background, the way people raise their children (morals etc). In some countries people push their children to study hard and pursue their dreams more than in others. I am not going to give examples, but I have noticed this.

Ward Dragon
10-08-10, 19:02
Just saw this (http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696) today and figured it was better here than in a new thread since this one is only a month old. I thought this was a really amusing take on the whole controversy:

So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.

patriots88888
10-08-10, 19:09
I have serious doubts he'll go through with it. This sounds to me like more of the many internet ramblings you see every day than anything else.

Ward Dragon
10-08-10, 19:23
I have serious doubts he'll go through with it. This sounds to me like more of the many internet ramblings you see every day than anything else.

Well he says he's really super serious, and apparently his coworker agrees :p But even if he's not serious, I think it raises really interesting questions. Should both buildings be allowed, even if it could potentially cause conflict? Would it be right to allow one building but not the other? If so, which building? If not, how to deal with any trouble if conflicts did arise? I think it's an interesting topic to think about :)

patriots88888
10-08-10, 19:33
If I was the owner, I would be more concerned about the potential gay bar fights than any conflict outside the establishment. :p

I should have said 'anything concrete'. *hates those nasty afterthoughts.