CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Should churches be allowed in Europe after all the atrocities committed by the Crusaders? Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Islam. It was committed by a single extremist group with both religious and political motivations. I personally think that Islam is bad for humanity in the same way that all religions are bad for humanity, but above all else I believe in freedom, and assuming the people responsible for the community center containing the mosque went through all the proper steps to get the building approved, I see no reason why a mosque can't be built two blocks away from Ground Zero.
Thankfully, I have studied the Crusades and they were started by Pope Urban II in 1095 because the Muslims had taken Jerusalem, but that doesn't change the fact that the greatest atrocities were committed by the Crusaders. According to the first-hand account of the First Crusade, written by Fulcher of Chartres, one of the Crusaders, the Crusaders entered the Dome of the Rock and slaughtered all the women and children that were in there praying for safety until the blood was ankle-deep. Secondly, I never argued that it was Christianity that was responsible for 9/11. I was merely showing that other extremist groups with different beliefs have also done terrible things in the past, but it is not the fault of the religion as a whole. As much as I think religion as a whole is stupid and harmful to society, most religious people are decent human beings, and the 99% of Muslims who would have openly opposed this extremist act if they had seen it coming should have all the same rights and liberties as all the other citizens of the United States. This includes the right to use their hard-earned money to build a mosque wherever they want to. They could build it on Ground Zero if they paid enough, but you will notice in the original article that they had the decency to build it a couple blocks away. If anyone is really offended enough by this, then by all means go buy that plot of land and build whatever you want there. As for proving that 9/11 was committed by an extremist group, I honestly don't know what to say. Osama bin Laden confessed that Al Quaeda did it in a video he sent to us right after the attack. I'll admit that it isn't definitive proof but it's good enough for me. Finally, you are correct for once. Personal beliefs have no place in a true debate, and I will try to limit them in the future.
Thankfully, I have studied the Crusades and they were started by Pope Urban II in 1095 because the Muslims had taken Jerusalem,
So you admit that it never would have happened had not the Muslims been so warlike.
but that doesn't change the fact that the greatest atrocities were committed by the Crusaders.
That's open to debate. How can one be certain that Muslims never did such a thing but - obviously not as stupid as the Crusaders - didn't write about it?
According to the first-hand account of the First Crusade, written by Fulcher of Chartres, one of the Crusaders, the Crusaders entered the Dome of the Rock and slaughtered all the women and children that were in there praying for safety until the blood was ankle-deep.
Eye-witness accounts are never reliable. Just ask aveskde.
After all, there are many first-hand accounts of vampires, ghosts, etc., but do you believe in such things?
I was merely showing that other extremist groups with different beliefs have also done terrible things in the past
How do we know these things to be the truth?
This includes the right to use their hard-earned money to build a mosque wherever they want to.
What if I personally bought Ground Zero (or the closest location available) and erected a statue in dedication of the Muslims who gave their lives defending their extremist views (i.e. the terrorists). Would people mind that?
Osama bin Laden confessed that Al Quaeda did it in a video he sent to us right after the attack.
I was merely showing that other extremist groups with different beliefs have also done terrible things in the past, but it is not the fault of the religion as a whole.
It's not the fault of the religion when it preaches against the behaviour in question or doesn't condone it in any way. When a religion's chief authoritative text demands or praises atrocious behaviour, then the religion is accountable.
As much as I think religion as a whole is stupid and harmful to society, most religious people are decent human beings, and the 99% of Muslims who would have openly opposed this extremist act if they had seen it coming should have all the same rights and liberties as all the other citizens of the United States.
This isn't a matter of religious or minority liberty. I'll use an example to illustrate my point, since it is easier to convey this way:
Fred Phelps and his church congregation, Westboro Baptist, would act loudly and protest during the funerals of soldiers who died in in service. Their message? "Thank god for dead soldiers." They were well within their rights of free speech and protest, but laws were eventually established to reduce this behaviour. My question to you is: Would you be amongst those that defend the WBC protesters' rights to protest and speak freely during a time of mourning for a family and friends?
The construction of a Mosque so close to ground zero is in this vein. It doesn't matter what the beliefs of the majority of Muslims are, or whether those attending the church will choose to defile the memory of those who died, or simply pray peacefully. What matters is that a mosque is an endorsement to the same religion that the perpetrators of the attack died in the name of. A mosque is a symbol of affirmation of that religion, and it serves as the same type of obnoxious reminder that the WBC protesters acted as.
Try framing this issue as a matter of common decency. We both agree that the Muslims have a right to build mosques, and worship in this country, but if you think of this as a matter of courtesy and decency over politics and law, it becomes clear that a Mosque near ground zero is extremely insensitive.
Islam, like Christianity and other religions, is full of contradictions. There is a passage in the Quran that can be interpreted as condoning the killing of infidels, although I have had Muslims explain to me that they interpret it differently, but the Quran also says "whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew entire mankind; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept entire mankind alive" (Quran 5:32). Because the message is so confusing and contradictory, and the vast majority of Muslims are productive, peaceful members of society, they should have all the same rights other citizens do. As for your argument involving Fred Phelps, I have attended multiple Anti-WBC protests because I believe they are terrible human beings, but I still would defend their freedom of speech as long as they were not acting in such a way that placed their targets in physical danger. On the other side, the families of dead soldiers also have the right to restrict access to ceremonies and funerals as private gatherings, reducing the impact WBC can have on them. As for your common decency argument, it really makes no difference in my judgment. The mosque is a few blocks away from Ground Zero so I don't see it as offensive anyway, and if we won't allow a mosque there then where will we allow it? They clearly want to put a mosque there and they have every right to do so. Part of living in a free country is accepting that occasionally people you disagree with will have their way. You must either overcome them by legal means, which, in this case, is limited to buying the property where the mosque is/will be located, or you must abandon the value of freedom that is one of the most important principles our country was founded on. I choose freedom.
Because the message is so confusing and contradictory, and the vast majority of Muslims are productive, peaceful members of society, they should have all the same rights other citizens do.
Which they do. There are 1400 mosques in the USA.
On the other side, the families of dead soldiers also have the right to restrict access to ceremonies and funerals as private gatherings, reducing the impact WBC can have on them.
Right. New Yorkers, those affected by the terrorist attack, have a right to protest and prevent the construction of a mosque right next to where the incident happened, to reduce the impact of Islam on the memory of those who were murdered in Islam's name.
The mosque is a few blocks away from Ground Zero so I don't see it as offensive anyway, and if we won't allow a mosque there then where will we allow it?
Why don't you see that as offensive? Don't you think this fact occurred to the people who bought that land for project? Do you REALLY think they were just naive Muslims who had no idea that constructing a mosque in close proximity to a major Islamic terrorism site would cause extreme offense and outrage?
I agree that they have the same legal rights currently, but I am not talking about the mosques that are already in place. I am talking about their right to build more, because America is a land of freedom and opportunity where anyone that is willing to do hard work and earn money while following our laws can do whatever they want with that money within certain legal boundaries. This entire debate focuses on the idea that it is somehow okay to take peoples' rights away because the majority of citizens find their beliefs or actions distasteful. I completely agree with your second point. New Yorkers absolutely have the right to protest or buy the property themselves, but if they don't take the initiative to buy this land from the people who want to construct a mosque there then the Muslims get that land fair and square and since building a mosque is legal they are free to go ahead and do that. Finally, you seem to be assuming that the Muslims doing this are either evil or stupid, but the third, and I think most likely, option is that they have considered it and agree with me that it shouldn't be that big of a deal since they are innocent.
I agree that they have the same legal rights currently, but I am not talking about the mosques that are already in place. I am talking about their right to build more, because America is a land of freedom and opportunity where anyone that is willing to do hard work and earn money while following our laws can do whatever they want with that money within certain legal boundaries.
They have the right to build more already. However, being a religious group doesn't give them impunity, they must respect community wishes like everyone else.
This entire debate focuses on the idea that it is somehow okay to take peoples' rights away because the majority of citizens find their beliefs or actions distasteful.
Somehow? It's been this way since the start of the nation.
I completely agree with your second point. New Yorkers absolutely have the right to protest or buy the property themselves, but if they don't take the initiative to buy this land from the people who want to construct a mosque there then the Muslims get that land fair and square and since building a mosque is legal they are free to go ahead and do that.
I get the impression from what you said here that political ramifications and underpinnings are simply not occurring to you.
Finally, you seem to be assuming that the Muslims doing this are either evil or stupid, but the third, and I think most likely, option is that they have considered it and agree with me that it shouldn't be that big of a deal since they are innocent.
Not a big deal? You realise that innocent Muslims in the west were celebrating the 9/11 attacks as a victory for Islam. Then there's the obvious fact that Muslims, in the name of Islam, rammed a plane in a skyscraper a mere two blocks away. If you think that the Muslims overseeing the project assumed it wasn't a big deal, then you're really just saying that they are stupid.
Look at the political climate, after all. We have television being censored in the states because of fears that Muslims (in our own country, no less) will kill people for broadcasting the Islamic prophet's image in a cartoon! Just a couple months ago a Muslim tried to car bomb some buildings on US soil. Yet you think they just assumed there shouldn't be any objections because they aren't terrorists?
Jeez, what kind of sign will it take to convince politically correct people that we're being invaded by an intolerant, subjugating culture? Do you need car bombs and suicide bombers blowing up twice a month in our country before you realise that Islam is not a peaceful religion?
You argue again and again for capitalism and free market and anyone should do what they like with the money they earn. Muslims earn money and buy a mosque, suddenly you're an idealist.
The Muslims who will be going to this mosque were no more responsible for 9/11 by virtue of being Muslim, then you were for slavery being as you're white,
Yet just a few debates ago you spewed despotic how unfair it is that we should now continue paying for slavery simply for our skin color,
Now though, now that it is not you specifically, these Muslims should pay for other's sins.
I'm dissappointed in how tranparently flawed your logic is.
I had believed you'd learnt this of me: I debate for fun. I don't debate my own opinions, rather the underdog's opinion. Haven't you ever noticed that I almost always chose the opinion with few adherents?
The Muslims who will be going to this mosque were no more responsible for 9/11 by virtue of being Muslim, then you were for slavery being as you're white,
You say it with such certainty!
The peoples congregating at this mosque may not have been responsible for 9/11, but they could be planning on other terrorist attacks. The irony would be terrific!
The peoples congregating at this mosque may not have been responsible for 9/11, but they could be planning on other terrorist attacks. The irony would be terrific!
Sure, and all the Christians in Texas could be planning another Waco.
As anti-religious as I am, if one group is aloud to worship invisible fairy tales so should every group.
"The peoples congregating at this mosque may not have been responsible for 9/11, but they could be planning on other terrorist attacks. The irony would be terrific!"
Are you serious? Like, is this your actual justification? I honestly can't tell with you sometimes.
The Crusaders were fighting a war begun by the Muslims
... no they weren't. They were started in 1095 CE by Pope Urban when he proclaimed Christians to be superior and encouraged Christians to take Jerusalem.
Prove it - referring to who was responsible for 9/11
Really? Conspiracies now? You're insinuation that perhaps all Muslims were responsible has no more merit than the conspiracy theory that Bush planned the whole thing.
Actually if you want to get ridiculous about it, hairy guys who worshipped rocks and the sun originally lived there.
And since the Jewish Religion is older than both Muslims and Christianity, they were there first.
However, the point remains that everyone was doing just fine when once again assholes decided to use religion to do asshole things. Now we are again a thousand years later using religion to do an asshole thing, not let a group of people worship where they want to.
It's retarded, literally, doing the same dumb ass thing over and over. Let them worship their silly magic daddy wherever they want.
you have all got it wrong look at the facts, nature of the human ( clothed ape!!!) there are far to many of them living upon the land that is unable to support them regard less of religion. the ever expanding population will have to end. what goes up must come down! regardless of dates, time there will be a decline of the human, simple fact just look at his story or history! get over it! all religions helped humans to be able to survive. but that is now the problem!
the red Indians had a good religion unfortunate for them there was a religion called technology! why not build a tee pee, or a bomb shelter Mr bush could use one of them to hide in lol. let nature have the land back! no more building or development! much needed common sense.
i will sent some jam jar bottoms to make sum spec's, then it will be very easy to read! basically don't building anything on ground zero remove the name (ground zero there is no legend just a catalyst for war) no mosque or hot dog stand.
Should churches be allowed in Europe after all the atrocities committed by the Crusaders?
Opposing factions' churches wouldn't have been allowed a mere nine years after the event. It's true that time heals all wounds but we are presently at war with Islamic factions who spread their ideology amongst mosques, and the terrorism they committed was not very long ago.
If this was 50 years after, or even 25 years after, feelings would probably be different but we're still too involved with those radical elements of the religion.
Why should we persecute all Arabs because a group of radicals did this? This is similar to the internment camps that the US created in WWII to keep Japanese-Americans captive.
Why should we persecute all Arabs because a group of radicals did this? This is similar to the internment camps that the US created in WWII to keep Japanese-Americans captive.
You're being foolish by resorting to hyperbole. This is not persecution and it cannot compare in the slightest to Japanese internment camps.
This is a matter of respecting the victims of a religion which caused that very bloodshed, and thus denying the construction of a mosque (which itself is a political statement by the investors backing it) which would serve to denigrate the memory of those people.
Consider it like building a cyanide gas factory in Jerusalem a few years after world war 2, or constructing a "wonders of atomic energy" museum in the middle of Nagasaki years after it was leveled.
Now you're the one resorting to hyperbole. The religion didn't cause the bloodshed - fundamentalist extremists did. They make up a very small minority compared to most muslims - your arguments would only make sense if mainstream islam called for the attacks.
The actions of a rogue group do not reflect in any way upon the millions of individuals who have comited the crime of practicing a similar religion. You might as well say that christians should be banned from making churches anywhere near abortion clinics because of Eric Rudolph's bombings.
Now you're the one resorting to hyperbole. The religion didn't cause the bloodshed - fundamentalist extremists did. They make up a very small minority compared to most muslims - your arguments would only make sense if mainstream islam called for the attacks.
I am not using hyperbole. I was using examples to illustrate the absurdity of constructing a mosque at the location where people died because of the religion. The trouble is that you are making too many allowances for the Muslims at the expense of those who suffered, I presume because it is a religion and that automatically gets more respect.
Islam is a violent religion, so much so that it has to engage in propaganda just to get the thinnest veil of legitimacy, in the west. Coupled with political correctness in the west taken to the point that people aren't thinking any longer but just following handy rules of inoffensiveness, we have an atmosphere where people can't seem to see the obvious.
The obvious fact is that this mosque wasn't incidentally chosen to be placed at that location, it was a political ploy to gain attention and show how impotent we are at dealing with the recent rise of Islam. It's a form of mockery, like setting up a Pro-Nuclear rally at Chernobyl, or like building an imperial Japanese cultural tribute at the centre of Pearl Harbor. It's intentionally distasteful to place a building that endorses the very religion of those terrorists, who admittedly did the deed in the name of their religion, at the centre of that attack. How more clear can this be? Do you need to see more Muslims celebrating 9/11 as a victory brought by Allah? Do you need to watch more videos of Muslim Imams and Clerics explaining that Islam endorses the deeds of martyrs, and how it is the duty of every true Muslim to declare war on the west, while quoting their holy book?
It's not like the Quran has no mention or endorsement of violence, or that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are just making up the foundations of their Jihad from thin air. But even if this were the case, it would still be disrespectful and in supreme lack of taste to build a shrine to a religion which the bombers claim to have acted in the name of, at the site of their attack.
The Quran doesn't mention violence any more or less than the Bible.
So... because we don't flinch an eyebrow when Christians use their religion for violence and to condone hatred, it's only fair that we allow ANOTHER religion a free pass of respect and entitlement so that it can choose to encourage prejudices and hatred on our soil?
Is this what you're arguing for, that it's better to support two religions of violence than support one (which we're trying to change, by the way) of violence with a double standard?
Should Waco not be allowed to have any Christian Churches?
It is the exact... same... logic...
It was government forces that seized that complex in Mount Carmel Center. The logic is that building a tribute to those men and women (or the ATF in general) at that spot in Waco would be in bad taste, and I agree with this.
The anti-Muslim sentiment that has been growing in America exacerbates the problem of Islam extremism.
We are a country founded on ideals of religious freedom and to even discuss NOT allowing a mosque near Ground Zero shows that we have come a long way from our founding.
We are founded on those principals, so why should we not expect those who want to build the mosque here in the United States go by the same principals.
If you went to Mecca and Medina, you not only wouldn't see a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue, you wouldn't see a non-Muslim. They're closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter. Yet we're told that we have to have this mosque in this place where Muslim terrorists relying on a construction of the Koran, mass murdered thousands of Americans.
Now because of our principal we have to allow others who do not follow that principal to do as they please?
We are not Saudi Arabia or North Korea or any number of other countries who do not support freedom. We are America. We are a nation founded on freedom and if we don't offer it to everyone, then it's not really freedom, is it? Freedom for some just doesn't work.
We're better than they are, so we say, so we sure as hell better act like it.
We are not Saudi Arabia or North Korea or any number of other countries who do not support freedom. We are America. We are a nation founded on freedom and if we don't offer it to everyone, then it's not really freedom, is it? Freedom for some just doesn't work.
We're better than they are, so we say, so we sure as hell better act like it.
We have freedom and liberties but that's not what's important here. You see we also have social responsibilities. For example, it would be considered inappropriate to construct a porn shop across from a church or schoolyard. It's the porn shop owner's liberty to build where he pleases but common decency is a responsibility that gets in the way of that.
So please don't endorse that mindset of "we're bigger than them, lets give freedom to everyone indiscriminately, without thought or prudence." How do you think the Muslim world in the middle east and south Asia will react to the mosque's construction? You can bet that there will be numerous clerics and fundamentalist men of influence who will see this and say to their followers "Look at America, how it has no backbone to stand up to us, how decadence has made it so soft that it would rather bow down to us and Allah than defend the memory of its citizens."
Actually no, it's not the porn shop owner's liberty to build where he pleases. He must get a building permit zoned for that type of business, which he isn't going to get near a school or a church.
Freedom doesn't work if you selectively give it. We're going to send a much stronger message by enacting the values we stand for than we are by ignoring them for those we disagree with.
Actually no, it's not the porn shop owner's liberty to build where he pleases. He must get a building permit zoned for that type of business, which he isn't going to get near a school or a church.
Right. Why is that? We're a freedom-loving country right? Aren't we discriminating against porn owners and users by requiring permits from them, or even denying them those permits? It's their hard-earned money that goes to finance the shop, etc.
Freedom doesn't work if you selectively give it.
Really?
Actually no, it's not the porn shop owner's liberty to build where he pleases.
We're going to send a much stronger message by enacting the values we stand for than we are by ignoring them for those we disagree with.
A free society cannot survive by mindlessly enabling freedom and acting as the "bigger guy" because doing so would inevitably grant freedom to those who wish to conquer that country.
However this isn't relevant to the discussion of the mosque. The mosque near ground zero isn't an issue of persecuting Muslims, or being intolerant of other beliefs. It's an issue of zoning, like the porn shop, an issue of poor taste in choosing to build a Mosque where people of that faith killed three thousand people. Why aren't you offended by this, or sensitive to the memory of those who died? You've awfully sensitive to the Muslim backers. Would you show more compassion if those three-thousand people who died were a racial minority?
The anti-Muslim sentiment that has been growing in America
There is a reason for this 'anti-Muslim (or, more specifically, anti-Semitic) sentiment; that is, they killed many people and have made their desire to kill known many times over !!
exacerbates the problem of Islam extremism.
It truly is* a problem, and the only way to defeat this problem is to get rid of all the Muslims.
We are a country founded on ideals of religious freedom
Why does the way in which America was founded matter today? It's all in the past now, liberals don't care about freedom of speech (cf. political correctness, et al), why should I care about freedom of religion?
and to even discuss NOT allowing a mosque near Ground Zero shows that we have come a long way from our founding.
It's been a tumultuous two-hundred-plus years, hasn't it?
You're on very shaky ground here. "They" killed many people. The "they" here isn't Muslims, it's Muslim extremists. Terrorists, specifically. And non-terrorist Muslims aren't particularly fond of them, either.
It truly is a problem, and the only way to defeat this problem is to get rid of all the Muslims.
You don't honestly believe this do you? Are you advocating genocide? Or the banning of a set of religious beliefs within our borders? What exactly are you getting at, other than being incendiary?
And why does America's founding matter today? Oh, I don't know, maybe because we are what we are because of our foundation? Maybe because those ideals are the best thing about us? Or maybe just because it's right. Liberals are not one big mega-group like you tend to think. We are varied with varying opinions. Still, on the whole, its liberals who argue most often for freedom of speech (I've yet to meet a conservative who thinks flag burning should be protected...) but I digress.
Regardless of where you think any party or group stands with respect to the ideals America was founded upon, that does not change the inherent value of those ideals.
First of all, if you looked, you'd notice that I'm disputing every argument.
And non-terrorist Muslims aren't particularly fond of them, either.
Proof?
Are you advocating genocide?
Why not? They are!
Or the banning of a set of religious beliefs within our borders?
They do!
What exactly are you getting at, other than being incendiary?
That multi-culturalism isn't as good as it's made out to be.
Oh, I don't know, maybe because we are what we are because of our foundation?
No, we are what we are now because of all the presidents and wars and policies and administrations, etc., etc., etc. that we have experienced since America's founding.
Maybe because those ideals are the best thing about us?
If it's so good, then why are the liberals trying to get rid of it?
Or maybe just because it's right.
Morality is too subjective to use as an argument. If it were stable, then maybe, but...
Liberals are not one big mega-group like you tend to think.
Nope. They are a series of evil mini-groups.
Still, on the whole, its liberals who argue most often for freedom of speech
Then why do they also argue for political correctness and for freedom from religion?
I've yet to meet a conservative who thinks flag burning should be protected...
Many [erroneously] claim that I'm a liberal, and I'm all for burning the flag.
I suspect those living in areas controlled by the Taliban are none too happy about it.
And riddle me this. If they're so terrible, then why do you point to them as an example of how we ought to behave? "Why not advocate genocide? They started it!" "Why not ban religious freedom? They do it!" The fact that they behave that way is reason enough why we should not. We don't want to be like that. They're bad. We're good. Right?
And please, stop trying to make this debate about whether liberals are trying to get rid of anything. I couldn't care less when it comes to this debate because it's got nothing to do with it. You're wrong, for the record, but I won't debate something so off-topic. Let's stick to the point. What liberals or conservatives or anyone else believes does not change my original statement. The inherent value of the ideals is unaffected.
If you'd like to argue that freedom of religion or freedom of speech are bad and provide supporting evidence, be my guest. Otherwise you've got no point.
I stated that I am disputing them all; I haven't done every one quite yet...
so please keep your self-horn-tooting to a minimum.
What? You stupid liberals can't seem to debate without name-calling. 'Self-horn-hooting'? What's that supposed to mean? I'm some 'attention whore' because I am trying to 'spice up' the debate?
And what part of the Amnesty report did you find so dubious?
As far as treating evil with kindness, within our borders, we should treat everyone equal. Because that's what America is about. Freedom for some is not freedom. Our commitment to freedom is supposedly what makes us superior to so many other nations. Now, whether we're superior or not is not my concern. But our commitment to liberty and justice for all is.
My argument simply stated that, when desired, those values are ignored. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your thinking reflects a very childlike view of the world. You have to take one stance or the other. Either the ideals we have are worthy or they're not. You've yet to give your opinion on this, but you argue repeatedly that liberty can be ignored either because Muslims ignore it or because liberals disagree with conservatives over what freedom of religion and freedom of speech are supposed to mean. What do you think?
You're on very shaky ground here. "They" killed many people. The "they" here isn't Muslims, it's Muslim extremists. Terrorists, specifically. And non-terrorist Muslims aren't particularly fond of them, either.
There is a remarkable silence of moderate Muslims towards their extreme brethren. The moderates in a sense act as a protective shield. We need to somehow win over the moderates to rationality so that the extremists are exposed.
Can you blame them? The threats to their own lives are severe for speaking out.
In Afghanistan, where a peace jirga was recently held, the Taliban's underground government announced that the punishment for attending would be death. They proceeded to launch rocket attacks at the 1,600 delegates gathered.
I agree that we need to win them (the moderates) over, but the way to do that isn't going to be by denying them religious liberty nor is it going to be bombing innocent civilians in an attempt to kill a few bad men.
I agree that we need to win them (the moderates) over, but the way to do that isn't going to be by denying them religious liberty nor is it going to be bombing innocent civilians in an attempt to kill a few bad men.
It's not a matter of religious liberty. Three-thousand people died because of Muslim terrorism at that site. The respect for their memory, and of their families is more important than a mosque, which would receive little protest if built elsewhere.
In the west the moderates are fortunate in that they need not fear violence perpetrated against them for trying to assimilate. However, the big threat to them comes from the native culture. If you continually support policies that alienate the native culture in order to give special treatment to the minority, it will be resented. We wouldn't be having this debate if it was about, say, erecting a statue of Pat Robertson in the middle of the earthquake-devastated region of Haiti (as you are aware, he implied the earthquake was punishment from god). We would all agree that such a thing would be obscenely insensitive and inappropriate. Erecting a mosque right near where people died in the name of that religion would be a slap in the face to everyone who suffered, and would only serve to make Muslims in the area more resented for receiving special treatment through political correctness.
What do you mean non terrorist Muslims aren't fond of Radical Muslims?! These terrorists are there heroes! Why do people not realize that the Muslim goal is to kill all non-Muslims?! "No, not all Muslims are radical, some are just MODERATE Muslims. There is nothing wrong with these people." You know why domestic terrorism is growing? Because the Muslim minority in our coun try is slowly gaining confidence and although they are still small in number, they are doing huge damage. READ THE KORAN PEOPLE! Sura 8:39 : Make war on them (non-Muslims) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.
And non-terrorist Muslims aren't particularly fond of them, either. -Spoonerism
Honestly? Non-terrorist Muslims are very fond of terrorists to say the least. Granted, not all Muslims kill people, but that is probably because Muslims are a minority in the US and they would be aniihilated if they did. Also, in the Middle East the countries are almost 100% Muslim. So, there isn't much killing to do there huh? How about Africa? Lets see, according to http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html 120 million Christians and animists have died in the last 1400 of jihad. How much longer must this go on? Okay, so you say that "MODERATE" Muslims don't believe this is right? When is the last time any Muslim denounced terrorism? If they have, then maybe they need to read the Koran more : "Fighting is obligaory to you, much as you dislike it." -Sura 2:216
Maybe these so-called "MODERATE" Muslims aren't too Muslim after all? These people seem awfully like Jews who stuff themselves with pork, if you know what I mean.
You couldn't even copy-and-paste your argument? Rather, you supplied a link!
(idiot)
The purpose of the link is a polite suggestion to the creator of the debate to use the search function, as is common practice in any forum, but thank you for your feedback.
A lot of people who would disagree with this seem racist (or "religionist", I suppose) against Muslims. Let me tell you that 9/11 was not caused by every single Muslim. It was an attack against our nation, orchestrated by an extremely radical group of Muslims. Not every Muslim is a terrorist!
And to prove that not all Muslims are terrorists is simple. Go to a mosque in the US and meet one. They're Americans just like us. When the Nazis were on rampage throughout Europe, we didn't single out Germans (specifically Aryans). And maybe that's because they never attacked our soil. But what about the Japanese? They bombed Pearl Harbor and we turned around and imprisoned countless Japanese-Americans in internment camps. We imprisoned innocent Japanese people simply because other Japanese people were our enemies.
If you want to block all citizens of those Arabian nations from entering our country, that'd be one thing. But treating fellow Americans like that is unconstitutional. Whatever happened to the freedom of religion?
You do realize that Arabs are Semites, and that Muslims believe that Muhammed was descended from Ishmael, the first son of Abraham with his wife's Egyptian [slave?], Hagar?
Go to a mosque in the US and meet one.
What would that prove? They can say anything they like, that doesn't mean it's the truth.
When the Nazis were on rampage throughout Europe, we didn't single out Germans (specifically Aryans).
Maybe we should have? Down with the Krauts!
And maybe that's because they never attacked our soil.
They most likely would have, if only Britain didn't stand in their way.
They bombed Pearl Harbor and we turned around and imprisoned countless Japanese-Americans in internment camps.
That was a good idea, most likely. It could easily have saved countless true-American lives, rather than the recent-immigrants.
If you want to block all citizens of those Arabian nations from entering our country, that'd be one thing.
If they treat us horribly, why shouldn't we treat them in a similar fashion? Non-Muslims can't even enter Mecca.
But treating fellow Americans like that is unconstitutional.
They're immigrants! They aren't 'fellow Americans', they're foreigners with some naturalization papers.
Whatever happened to the freedom of religion?
Freedom of just about anything went out when political correctness came in (oh, and when we were attacked!).
"If they treat us horribly, why shouldn't we treat them in a similar fashion? Non-Muslims can't even enter Mecca."
Well in this case, Mecca is a religious city and they're allowed to govern their province however they want. New York City, however, is a completely secular city and, because of this, should allow people from any religion or race to live, work, or vacation there.
"They're immigrants! They aren't 'fellow Americans', they're foreigners with some naturalization papers."
So were your ancestors. All of our first ancestors in the country (except for Native Americans) were just "foreigners with naturalization papers." That's what makes America so amazing- is that we can all come together and accept other cultures.
And if there's one thing in this world I cannot stand, it's political correctness. People have to learn that it's impossible to say something without offending someone, so just learn to accept that and get on with your life! ;) (That's a general 'you', not specifically you)
Well in this case, Mecca is a religious city and they're allowed to govern their province however they want. New York City, however, is a completely secular city and, because of this, should allow people from any religion or race to live, work, or vacation there.
You're missing the point. Sharia and Muslim law are hostile towards secularism. The spirit of secularism is that every religion is equal through separation from government privilege. Sharia (and Islam) demand privilege and government entanglement, there can be no equality with this religion because every other religion is wrong, and of Satan to it.
If you want to block all citizens of those Arabian nations from entering our country, that'd be one thing. But treating fellow Americans like that is unconstitutional. Whatever happened to the freedom of religion?
This isn't a matter of freedom of religion. Muslims are allowed to worship freely. This is a matter of deeply offending the relatives of some 3000 citizens who lost their lives because of a religion that the mosque endorses, with the mosque's erection being a political statement.
Don't let hubris get in the way of tactical politics.
And yet somehow, their individual actions which they took as a result of their radical beliefs -beliefs which make up an extreme minority among muslims- reflect on every single other follower of Islam as a whole.
And yet somehow, their individual actions which they took as a result of their radical beliefs -beliefs which make up an extreme minority among muslims- reflect on every single other follower of Islam as a whole.
That IS how a religion works. More exactly, it's how a shared belief structure works. If you are a Nazi, the actions of men like Adolf Hitler reflect on you. If you are a communist, men like Mao, Castro and Stalin reflect on you.
It's this way because the beliefs which the extremists acted upon are shared in a central text, that everyone else follows.
It's a politically incorrect truth, which is probably why so many liberals take the position of "extremists don't speak for everyone."
I think I've found your problem. Extremists are called extremists AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR VIEWS BEING MORE EXTREME THAN THOSE OF THE AVERAGE PRACTITIONER. By calling them extremists, you admit that their views do no reflect those of the whole BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION. If every single muslim were out bombing buildings, then we wouldn't call the attackers extremists. We would call them "muslims" with no need for further identification, because they would be the norm.
But this is not the case. While islam itself is admittedly an archaic religion with great potential for violent interpretation, the vast majority of its followers are not inclined to terrorism. The church being planned has no direct ties to terrorism. Your claims that it is only being built as an insult is baseless speculation. As such, we have no legal right to prevent the church from being built, regardless of how disgusting the religion of islam may be.
Are you starting to get where I'm coming from here? I don't want the goddamn church. I don't particularly want any churches, muslim or otherwise. But constitutionally, we can't let our biases get in the way of the law.
I think I've found your problem. Extremists are called extremists AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR VIEWS BEING MORE EXTREME THAN THOSE OF THE AVERAGE PRACTITIONER. By calling them extremists, you admit that their views do no reflect those of the whole BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION.
First sentence, correct. Second sentence, incorrect. Do you see your mistake?
Extreme, average and moderate are like a coefficients, they require something to modify and each modifies the magnitude. Since we're talking about an ideology (religion or ideology is the same here since we don't care about the supernatural in this discussion), it means the adherents must share a common belief system to be a part of it. Further, the authoritative work is the Quran. Since the base of the ideology stays the same with the distinction being between sects, using words like extreme, average or moderate only would indicate a magnitude of propensity to trust the ideology and to act on it. It does not change the underlying beliefs.
To use a simpler explanation, extremists, moderates, and average followers all adhere to the Quran, which consistently promotes values like terrorism and intolerance. The only difference between these three groups is how much they trust the Quran and how much they are willing to act on it. Anyone can become an extremist with the right environment, but the Quran never changes between the groups, so it serves as a seed for violence.
If every single muslim were out bombing buildings, then we wouldn't call the attackers extremists. We would call them "muslims" with no need for further identification, because they would be the norm.
It perplexes me why you feel the need to defend the religion where if it was "just" an ideology like Nazism or Fascism I'm fairly confident that you'd condemn it for what it leads people to do.
But this is not the case. While islam itself is admittedly an archaic religion with great potential for violent interpretation, the vast majority of its followers are not inclined to terrorism. The church being planned has no direct ties to terrorism. Your claims that it is only being built as an insult is baseless speculation. As such, we have no legal right to prevent the church from being built, regardless of how disgusting the religion of islam may be.
Where did the beliefs of those who flew a plane into the World Trade Center come from, ultimately? The Quran. What is a mosque? A shrine to the Quran. It boils down to this, no matter how much you feel we need to appease those Muslims by letting them defile a memory in the name of tolerance, they are building a temple to a book that inspired the 9/11 attacks.
Are you starting to get where I'm coming from here? I don't want the goddamn church. I don't particularly want any churches, muslim or otherwise. But constitutionally, we can't let our biases get in the way of the law.
This isn't a constitutional issue however (are you claiming that Muslims are not permitted build mosques in America?). This is a zoning issue. The community around a proposed building has the right to protest it if they collectively agree it damages the neighborhood in some way.
However, I'll let you in on something. This passive "defend their freedom of religion" attitude you support (when it's not about that), has helped to clear the Mosque for construction, while if we accepted that it was a zoning issue, rather if the Manhattan council did, it probably would have been blocked. See how you played into the hands of religious propaganda in the name of tolerance?
"It perplexes me why you feel the need to defend the religion where if it was "just" an ideology like Nazism or Fascism I'm fairly confident that you'd condemn it for what it leads people to do."
I don't defend the religion at all. I defend its legal right to exist , if not its moral right - in much the same way that I believe that the KKK and neo-nazi parties have the right to exist, if not undertake illegal action based on their disgusting beliefs. Honestly, I'm against building the church - what bothers me is the faulty logic being used to justify opposing it.
>
"Since the base of the ideology stays the same with the distinction being between sects, using words like extreme, average or moderate only would indicate a magnitude of propensity to trust the ideology and to act on it. It does not change the underlying beliefs."
Granted. But no matter how much you play with words, the fact remains that the vast majority of muslims do not fall into the category of extremist, and as such should not be discriminated against."
>
"Where did the beliefs of those who flew a plane into the World Trade Center come from, ultimately? The Quran. What is a mosque? A shrine to the Quran. It boils down to this, no matter how much you feel we need to appease those Muslims by letting them defile a memory in the name of tolerance, they are building a temple to a book that inspired the 9/11 attacks."
Here's another problem you have with connections: You boil them down too much. Just because A and B are related, and B and C are related, does not mean that A and C are related. It's like rectangles and squares.
In practice: Just because the bombers (a) followed the quran (b)and those building the mosque (c) followed the quran (b) does not in and of itself imply that there is any connection between the mosque and the bombers.
I play video games. The Virginia Tech shooter played video games. Am I going to shoot up my school?
>
"This is a zoning issue. The community around a proposed building has the right to protest it if they collectively agree it damages the neighborhood in some way."
And how does it damage the neighborhood? So far your only argument was that it would offend the survivors. Which means that by not protesting, the locals have proved that they are not offended. Which means that, without the guise of moral outrage, you no longer have any legal reason to oppose the building.
Do you see no hubris in defending the right of something to exist which has imperalistic overtones and would try to destroy your freedom-loving society?
I can't quote your paragraphs by the way, on this device, so bear with the broken paragraphs.
I'm not using wordplay, I see it as an important aspect of religion and authoritarian ideology that a central book which holds the details of all beliefs that members are expected to hold, can only mean that regardless of quantifier every member may become extreme to docile or the other way around, with the same overall beliefs. This means that asking me to grant a pardon to moderates is useless in the long term because they are ticking timebombs, ripe for conversion to extremism with the proper environment. This is afterall how terrorists are born in a number of countries, they are recruited as moderates with fliers, often a money reward to the family is promised. Then they are indocrinated. This is entirely possible in the US in the poor urban ghettos. This is what makes Islam presently so horrific.
As for my boiling down, you missed the point I believe. I wasn't saying that the mosque is tied to the bombers in a physical sense. I was saying that they share the same ideology, the difference only in magnitude. I don't understand why I must point out the obvious here for how it is so very wrong to endorse the ideology of people who bomb civilians right near the attack site. If these people cared for the victims they would build elsewhere. How would it look if Americans built a military celebration memorial right at the site of Hiroshima?
About the protests, people did protest the building. Their pleas were ignored. I expect that if the victims of the 9/11 attacks had brown skin or a foreign religion that promises death to those who disrespect it, their voices would have been heard. After all, that's what political correctness is getting us right now.
"Do you see no hubris in defending the right of something to exist which has imperalistic overtones and would try to destroy your freedom-loving society?"
Do you not see the hubris in stooping to repression in order to defend freedom?
>
"How would it look if Americans built a military celebration memorial right at the site of Hiroshima?"
That's a faulty analogy. They're not praising the terrorists, or pissing over the bodies of the slain. They're BUILDING A FUCKING CHURCH.
>
"This means that asking me to grant a pardon to moderates is useless in the long term because they are ticking timebombs, ripe for conversion to extremism with the proper environment."
So to you, every muslim is a potential terrorist.
You know, that actually clears things up. See, you know that sinking feeling you get when you realize the person you've been arguing with is a xenophobic nutcase, and that all the time you spent was essentially wasted?
Do you not see the hubris in stooping to repression in order to defend freedom?
Freedom cannot exist without protection. Think of a society like an organism, if it has no barriers or immune system it will succumb to pathogens.
That's a faulty analogy. They're not praising the terrorists, or pissing over the bodies of the slain. They're BUILDING A FUCKING CHURCH.
A building which supports the same book that served as the source by which the terrorist ideology could manifest.
The analogy is correct because the military memorial is being built by people who, to borrow your reasoning, didn't bomb the Japanese (it was the bomber pilots who did), and do not necessarily agree with the bombing, they have no link to the bombers and are merely praising the military of America. Further they would be within their rights to construct it, or is Japan now arbitrarily stifling free speech and expression? To go even further using your reasoning, because they are committing no crime, stopping them from from erecting this memorial would undermine Japan's liberty.
So to you, every muslim is a potential terrorist.
Right. Just as every Nazi, skinhead, and Klan member is potentially liable for a hate crime.
You know, that actually clears things up. See, you know that sinking feeling you get when you realize the person you've been arguing with is a xenophobic nutcase, and that all the time you spent was essentially wasted?
I just got that feeling.
Don't take your problem with me. Read some of the Quran. Stop buying into the PR campaign by American Muslims which says that the Quran doesn't preach intolerance or hate, misogyny etc. READ THE BLOODY BOOK YOURSELF and see that it is a very scary ideology. Of course if you just wish to live in a world where we can co-exist with an ideology that seeks to overtake the west and destroy secular society, and its adherents would sooner become atheist than militant, go ahead and call people nutcases. I won't be able to help with your delusion though.
I don't care, and neither should the relatives of those who died there. A mosque shouldn't be associated with their deaths in such a way that it makes building a mosque offensive, and even if it is such: so what? Having the mosque there doesn't violate rights, its not in the realm of law to deny the building of it.
I suppose I don't really understand the opposing side here. For what reason would we circumvent local law? I assume the mosque has already been cleared with zoning and safety regulations, and so forth. As long as they are complying with the law, we are only allowing them to do what everybody else in this country has a right to do.
Are they merely spiting Muslims out of prejudice? Do they hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a sectarian radical group that attacked the twin towers? I don't really see any logical argument to deny such a structure.
I suppose I don't really understand the opposing side here. For what reason would we circumvent local law? I assume the mosque has already been cleared with zoning and safety regulations, and so forth. As long as they are complying with the law, we are only allowing them to do what everybody else in this country has a right to do.
The issue is that nine years ago Muslim terrorists (in the name of Allah) killed 3000 civilians nearby, as in close proximity to the proposed mosque. Further the Mosque is named Cordoba, after a previous province that was a capital of Muslim rule 1000 years ago.
It is perceived as insensitive to promote a religion which condones conquest, intolerance and allows for terrorism near the site of victims of said terrorism.
The reaction is similar to what you might get if you zoned a Neonazi fellowship building in Jerusalem or a Zyklon B factory on top of the old concentration camps Austria and Germany.
Are they merely spiting Muslims out of prejudice? Do they hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a sectarian radical group that attacked the twin towers? I don't really see any logical argument to deny such a structure.
It's not prejudice. It's being offended at something that is intended to be as provocative as possible. The construction of said mosque is designed to be offensive to the memory of the victims of those attacks, that is why the mosque was built so close to the site of the attacks.
You need to look deeper into the construction of this building, the motivations behind it. They are not benevolent or innocent. It's like you're being slapped in the face and you're just looking at the fact that no laws prohibit this.
Maybe so, but do you not see the problem with blaming an entire religion of some 1.6 billion people for the actions of a small radical group within that religion? It is difficult for me to reason that prejudice is not playing some role in your response. Yes, the attack was done in the name of Islam, but not all of Islam condoned the attack. This would be the equivalent of blaming all white people for the actions of the KKK or blaming all Christians for the actions of Fred Phelps. It's sheer absurdity.
Islam uses the Hadith and Quran as the ultimate authority. The Quran condones terrorism, because it is legitimised as destroying unbelievers who attacked and insulted Muslims (because we support Israel and are in war in Afghanistan and Iraq). The beliefs and actions of the terrorists were not made up from unrelated material to Islam.
The correct analogy is to use a group assembled by ideology. This isn't a matter of race, so using it is a flawed analogy. Islam is a form of ideology, a belief structure, with divisions based on interpretation. They are required share similar beliefs, just like in Christianity, and the Quran is their authority. Because the Quran condones violence and intolerance it doesn't matter if we're talking about radicals who perpetrate the violence, or believers who are intolerant or merely unaware of the Quran's deeper theology, because a mosque endorses the Quran.
To use a parallel you might understand, imagine that Nazi radicals massacre a village of Jews then ten years later try to construct a tributary and study centre for Mein Kampf near the site of the massacre. These new Nazis didn't massacre anyone, and by your reasoning should be allowed to construct it because to deny them the right would be based on prejudice. They merely wish to promote the teachings of Mein Kampf.
Any religious text written thousands of years ago is going to have some bad things in it. The old testament commands us to stone disobedient children to death, although we don't see very many Jews doing this. Why? Because no one is forced to follow every single thing their religion teaches, and in fact most people don't. People have minds of their own. Sometimes they invent excuses for why they don't follow a certain part of their holy book.
You are blaming all Muslims for what a few have done. This reminds me of when a friend of mine, who was born in Germany, but lived most of her life in the States, was physically attacked by the grand-daughter of a holocaust survivor. She automatically associated all Germans with Nazis, just as you automatically associate all Muslims with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
We must not build any churches near a moment to the Jim Jones massacre victims, despite the fact that the Jim Jones church was radically different than mainstream churches.
Any religious text written thousands of years ago is going to have some bad things in it. The old testament commands us to stone disobedient children to death, although we don't see very many Jews doing this. Why? Because no one is forced to follow every single thing their religion teaches, and in fact most people don't. People have minds of their own. Sometimes they invent excuses for why they don't follow a certain part of their holy book.
The reason that Jews and Christians no longer stone people to death, burn people alive, and other nefarious crimes against humanity is that Europe went through the Enlightenment, religion became less rigid, and the United States continued this with the first SECULAR democracy. In other words, after a thousand years of brutality it took CENTURIES to undo that mentality that thinks stoning people, burning witches, and beating women was alright.
In the Muslim world people are still publicly stoned to death, witches are executed, homosexuals slain, corporal punishment still exists. The Muslim world never underwent an enlightenment, it is as savage today as Christianity was four hundred years ago. Yet you think that it's enough that we allow this religion within our borders and expect a few decades to undo all that backwards thinking? You're crazy. It's going to take generations before Muslims universally denounce terrorism, Jihad, brutality towards women and apostates, and so on. Yet here you are playing right into the hands of some Muslims who want to defile the memory of an all too recent attack on our soil. They could have placed their recreation centre anywhere in New York, but they placed it within walking distance of a massive MUSLIM terrorist attack, and named the building Cordoba as if they weren't being brazen enough.
You are blaming all Muslims for what a few have done. This reminds me of when a friend of mine, who was born in Germany, but lived most of her life in the States, was physically attacked by the grand-daughter of a holocaust survivor. She automatically associated all Germans with Nazis, just as you automatically associate all Muslims with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
You're being really dense. What unifies Germans? A Nation, shared culture. What unifies a religion? SHARED BELIEFS and SHARED DOGMA. What is this argument about? The SHARED BELIEFS of a group of people being offensive to the memory of peopled who were killed by attackers over those SHARED BELIEFS.
Al Quaeda and the Taliban did not invent their theology out of thin air. They used the Quran, which means that all Muslims who share this book as an authority are supporting these beliefs that infidels must die, that unbelievers must submit to Islam.
We must not build any churches near a moment to the Jim Jones massacre victims, despite the fact that the Jim Jones church was radically different than mainstream churches.
The Jim Jones theology is extremely different from biblical doctrine, he made stuff up. Further, because we are in a Christian majority region it makes it extremely difficult to stand up and resist measures by Christians that are offensive.
The argument is that not allowing the mosque near ground zero makes those who don't want it are intolerent.That is not the case at least in Christian nations. There are plenty of mosques throughout the United states,2300 plus . Several hundred in New York alone.
If you went to Mecca and Medina, you not only wouldn't see a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue, you wouldn't see a non-Muslim. They're closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter. Yet we're told that we have to have this mosque in this place where Muslim terrorists relying on a construction of the Koran, mass murdered thousands of Americans.
The intentions of the builders of the mosque make my vote a no.
The Cordoba Islamic Center is the proposed mosque. Cordoba was the name of the caliphate that conquered Spain and ruled it, often brutally, for about half a millennium. The guy behind the project is someone who has said that he would like to see Sharia law more insinuated into American law. The thought of having a mosque erected over the ruins of two of the great pillars of the Western economy and Western Civilization would be an enormous propaganda victory.
What was the point of that statement. It had no relevance to your argument, except to elevate a supposedly Christian country above an Islamic one.
"They're closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter."
That is the country's decision. If the country wishes to be a theocracy, then as that country is sovereign, they have the right to do so. Additionally, those are holy cities. I wouldn't call New York "holy"...
Do you have any sources for your last paragraph. Cordoba was a huge cultural center in the 9th and 10th centuries. Of course, by its downfall it had been corrupted (hence the downfall), but up until then, it remained rather peaceful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph_of_Córdoba). Additionally, please provide sources on Imam Feisal Abdul rauf's view that there should be more Sharia law. After the September 11 attacks he said "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam".
Again: So because islamic countries are repressive, that gives us the right to be? That's just juvenile. Shouldn't we, as a country, be above such simple "they did it first so it's okay"-type arguments?
Are you fighting the repression in other countries as vigourously? Christians,Jews ect would and are shamed out of doing such things as building near that site.Is it juvenile when asked to be treated the same.
Do you back not being juvenile against other religions?
He stated that we are expected to be tolerant to those who are intolerant. He did not state that we all are tolerant.
I guess you didn't read the link then, because it reports sects of Christianity which are supremely intolerant, in other words intolerant because of dogma.
The argument that we shouldn't do something because others don't seems JUVENILE at best. The "He did it first" rational, just doesn't work in the adult world nor do I find it particularly convincing.
Denying freedom of religion here would be banning the building of a mosque anywhere near the area. Mainstream islam had nothing to to do with the attack, so why should islam as a whole be targeted?
Also, my point was that the state of religious affairs in the middle east, no matter how repressive, should not have any effect on civil descisions within this country. The core of your argument is essentially "they are unfair to other religions, so it's okay to ban the mosque".
Denying freedom of religion here would be banning the building of a mosque anywhere near the area. Mainstream islam had nothing to to do with the attack, so why should islam as a whole be targeted?
Are Muslims free to worship? Yes. Are they being targeted for worshiping? No. Are they being targeted for building a mosque where people died? No, the builders are.
This isn't a freedom of religion issue.
The attack was done in the name of Islam, so building any structure supporting Islam in the vicinity of that area is essentially condoning this fact. Let me ask you something. Do you really think it was luck that decided that mosque's placement? What do you think entered the minds of those who elected to build a mosque there? Were they looking to cause shock? Probably. Were they trying to provoke us? Most definitely. You've been slapped in the face and you don't even realise it.
Also, my point was that the state of religious affairs in the middle east, no matter how repressive, should not have any effect on civil descisions within this country. The core of your argument is essentially "they are unfair to other religions, so it's okay to ban the mosque".
So if I read you correctly your argument is something like, "The oppressive state of Nazi Germany should have zero effect on civil decisions (involving Nazism) within this country."
You have much hubris, I only hope that this kind of hubris doesn't lead to our nation being conquered by militants who have no respect for liberty.
Maybe so, but do you not see the problem with blaming an entire religion of some 1.6 billion people for the actions of a small radical group within that religion? It is difficult for me to reason that prejudice is not playing some role in your response. Yes, the attack was done in the name of Islam, but not all of Islam condoned the attack. This would be the equivalent of blaming all white people for the actions of the KKK or blaming all Christians for the actions of Fred Phelps. It's sheer absurdity.
"So if I read you correctly your argument is something like, "The oppressive state of Nazi Germany should have zero effect on civil decisions (involving Nazism) within this country." "
Then you read it wrong. My argument was that opression in other countries DOES NOT GIVE US THE RIGHT TO EMULATE THEIR OPRESSION IN THE NAME OF "KEEPING THINGS EVEN".
>
"The attack was done in the name of Islam, so building any structure supporting Islam in the vicinity of that area is essentially condoning this fact"
That's ridiculous. What you're essentially saying here is
"Extremists bombed the building, so any building supporting the entire broad spectrum of Islam represents support of the bombing".
You're lumping all of Islam in with the attackers.
>
"Were they trying to provoke us? Most definitely."
Definitely? You sound remarkably positive that their only goal is to piss us off. Could it be that they're just trying to build a place of worship and perhaps move this country forward from the hate and xenophobia that we've been mired in ever since the bombing?
...Nah, they're definitely just fucking with us. That's the only logical possibility.
Then you read it wrong. My argument was that opression in other countries DOES NOT GIVE US THE RIGHT TO EMULATE THEIR OPRESSION IN THE NAME OF "KEEPING THINGS EVEN".
I see.
That's ridiculous. What you're essentially saying here is
"Extremists bombed the building, so any building supporting the entire broad spectrum of Islam represents support of the bombing".
You're lumping all of Islam in with the attackers.
Islam supports terrorism. Where do you think the extremists got their doctrine from? Supporting Islam is supporting a belief system that condones intolerance and violence towards infidels.
Definitely? You sound remarkably positive that their only goal is to piss us off. Could it be that they're just trying to build a place of worship and perhaps move this country forward from the hate and xenophobia that we've been mired in ever since the bombing?
No. There is the whole of America to build a Mosque. If you build a mosque at ground zero, you're trying to piss people off. Also, xenophobia towards Islam is justified. Don't let the fact that it's a religion grant it automatic respect in your eyes, it is a very violent, rigid belief system.
...Nah, they're definitely just fucking with us. That's the only logical possibility.
They've already won. Provoking a nation against it only lets them suggest to their brethren that America is intolerant and oppressive, and it alienates them into fundamentalism. If they succeed in building the mosque it will be a symbolic propaganda piece throughout the middle east, with clerics talking about how Allah has moved them forward in taking dominion over the west. No matter what we do, disallow it or allow it, it's a victory for the Islamists.
People like you are so blind to the politics of it that you haven't a clue.
"No. There is the whole of America to build a Mosque. If you build a mosque at ground zero, you're trying to piss people off. Also, xenophobia towards Islam is justified. Don't let the fact that it's a religion grant it automatic respect in your eyes, it is a very violent, rigid belief system."
I realize that islam is a backwards shitstain of a belief system. Don't confuse defending their rights as support of their religion. But xenophobia is never justified. Xenophobia is what's making you assume that the only possible reason they would build a mosque is to piss people off, when there are a multitude of other possible motives. You're saying that with such certainty, when the only proof you have if your own speculation.
Don't confuse defending their rights as support of their religion.
I'm not. They have the right to build mosques and they are most certainly not second class citizens.
It's supporting their religion when we, for example, do not called terrorism perpetrated by Muslims Islamic terrorism for fear of offending them, or censor television and media to avoid offending them when we do not make this exception for anyone else. It's supporting them when we give them special consideration at the cost of others.
Xenophobia is what's making you assume that the only possible reason they would build a mosque is to piss people off, when there are a multitude of other possible motives. You're saying that with such certainty, when the only proof you have if your own speculation.
I am not xenophobic, I just have a good grasp of politics and know an attempt to provoke when I see one. Ever since those attacks there has been a bitter attitude toward Islam in the west. After the war, and after the consistent use of suicide bombings and improvised explosives, there has been an increasing resentment. Then suddenly after the Mohammad cartoons, censorship became increasingly rampant. People died in the west at the hands of Muslims over "offense" and blasphemy. The point is, the last nine years hasn't been a successful healing effort between Muslims and secular society. It has been violent, hate-filled, full of censorship and double standards, and attempts at appeasement (because when you're based in a rational, secular society you earnestly think you can compromise with people who have no issue cutting your throat over perceived insults to their imaginary friend).
This is all common knowledge by the way, unless you are extremely dense or had you head in the sand for the last decade, you'd know how much resentment exists towards Islam. So when you act like the unassuming person who thinks "those Muslims just wanted a place to worship, so they built a mosque" or "those Muslims really do want to promote interfaith dialogue so they built a shrine right near the worst faith-based attack in decades, with good intentions" you're really saying "I believe those Muslims are stupid and dense and have no idea of the sentiment in the area."
Further, they continued the project for the Mosque after a series of protests. Yeah, they really have good intentions.
So the case involving the cross in the Arizona desert where some groups wanted the cross removed from federal land, that could be seen as denying freedom of religion also? Not hardly........ Christians are guilted out of such things but would you put up the same fight for them?
The cases aren't really comparable. I'd be fine with christians building a church on ground zero, but I'd be against muslims putting up islamic imagery on federal land.
Besides the fact that we don't need more religious structures erected in this day and age, my main argument is that it is highly insensitive to the victims of a terrorist bombing which happened there less than ten years ago, by Muslims in the name of their religion.
Whether or not the mosque is Wahhabi, Sunni, or Shi'a it is inappropriate to place it right next to the site of victims of Muslim terrorism.
@JGalt13 First of all, The Crusades were not justified by the Christian bible. This is the difference. There are many references in the Quran about killing infidels (non-Muslims). Islam is a threat to the world and the U.S. should not support by giving it permission to build a mosque on Ground Zero.
I don't quite understand what it is you are trying to say, please expand on your short comment.
I am saying that the bible condones war in the name of god, and intolerance of other religion, so it makes sense that the Crusades could find biblical support.
you have all got it wrong look at the facts, nature of human ( clothed ape!!!) there are far to many of them living upon the land that is unable to support them regard less of religion. the ever expanding population will stop. what goes up must come down! regardless of dates, time there will be a decline of the human, simple fact just look at his story or history! get over it! all religions helped humans to be able to survive. but that is now the problem!
the red Indians had a good religion unfortunate for them there was a religion called technology! why not build a tee pee, or a bomb shelter Mr bush could use one of them to hide in lol. let nature have the land back! no more building or development! much needed common sense.
They should build something more productive to society. They should re-build the World Trade Centers, or at least build something as beneficial as them. I don't care if it's a Mosque, a Church, a Movie Theater, a supermarket, whatever. They should build something worthwhile.
I have no problem with the mosque. But i don't believe any building of worship should be built there. There are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples etc. Build a museum, school or something. The performance art center and gym sound fine, why bring any religion into the complex? Leave it free of religion for all to enjoy.