MR

Just interested in what our little community thinks on this subject.

Even though they may have the legal rite to build there, I think there are rather large circumstances involved here that just cannot allow me to say yes.

There's not any acceptable choice here. It IS legal but I would like to see those wanting to build it CHOOSE to not do so. That would be the wise thing to do.

Gray area. Unless something's changed from what I read a couple weeks ago, they aren't looking to put it *at* ground zero, just near it. So maybe the question is "how close is too close?" The answer is probably "anywhere in downtown Manhattan.

I read something like 2 blocks away was the plan. Too close, if you ask me. Just because they legally "can" doesn't make it a good idea. It's bound to cause a lot of trouble.... protests, even violence... it will be an endless source of discontent.

bluejeangirl76 wrote:Gray area. Unless something's changed from what I read a couple weeks ago, they aren't looking to put it *at* ground zero, just near it. So maybe the question is "how close is too close?" The answer is probably "anywhere in downtown Manhattan.

I read something like 2 blocks away was the plan. Too close, if you ask me. Just because they legally "can" doesn't make it a good idea. It's bound to cause a lot of trouble.... protests, even violence... it will be an endless source of discontent.

They're used to nothing else.

No way, legal or not, shows a total lack of respect if its anywhere near ground zero

Since 78 wrote:No way, legal or not, shows a total lack of respect if its anywhere near ground zero

Totally... that's what I was getting at... and I was just listening to a discussion on the radio about it... I didn't quite catch it all, but it seems they got a huge group of construction workers to sign something saying they will refuse to work on it if there build it there, but if they move it uptown, they will all agree to build it. So it really is a "how close it too close" issue, and if that's true about the construction workers, then I was right - anywhere downtown is "too close" if they're okay with it being moved uptown.

bluejeangirl76 wrote:Gray area. Unless something's changed from what I read a couple weeks ago, they aren't looking to put it *at* ground zero, just near it. So maybe the question is "how close is too close?" The answer is probably "anywhere in downtown Manhattan.

I read something like 2 blocks away was the plan. Too close, if you ask me. Just because they legally "can" doesn't make it a good idea. It's bound to cause a lot of trouble.... protests, even violence... it will be an endless source of discontent.

So, should the mosque's that already exist in the area be destroyed?

Monker wrote:

bluejeangirl76 wrote:Gray area. Unless something's changed from what I read a couple weeks ago, they aren't looking to put it *at* ground zero, just near it. So maybe the question is "how close is too close?" The answer is probably "anywhere in downtown Manhattan.

I read something like 2 blocks away was the plan. Too close, if you ask me. Just because they legally "can" doesn't make it a good idea. It's bound to cause a lot of trouble.... protests, even violence... it will be an endless source of discontent.

So, should the mosque's that already exist in the area be destroyed?

That's a red herring. Those mosques were already there. The symbolism of a pre-existing mosque vs that of a brand spankin new one built on the rubble is completely different. The former is mere coincidence, the latter is nothing short of pissing on the graves of all the deceased. I hope this building never gets built.

bluejeangirl76 wrote:

Since 78 wrote:No way, legal or not, shows a total lack of respect if its anywhere near ground zero

Totally... that's what I was getting at... and I was just listening to a discussion on the radio about it... I didn't quite catch it all, but it seems they got a huge group of construction workers to sign something saying they will refuse to work on it if there build it there, but if they move it uptown, they will all agree to build it. So it really is a "how close it too close" issue, and if that's true about the construction workers, then I was right - anywhere downtown is "too close" if they're okay with it being moved uptown.

I think that's great, if the construction guys won't build it. Good for them.

And +1 to what Matt said.

The question SHOULD HAVE BEEN:

Should we make a NEW ground zero..i. e. The entire Middle East. This will NEVER end. And if you think this war on terrorism, and subsequent campaigns will do anything but annoy the beehive...you are delusional.

I have more questions than answers.

It should not be prohibited.

Where is the Muslim's common sense? Are they doing it to antagonize?

It is 2 blocks away. If not there...how many blocks is far enough?

When are the Muslims finally going to do something about their radicals? They need to do something from within.

If one Christian knew another was plotting to kill a bunch of people, would they do nothing, just because they are Christians too?

No new mosques anywhere in this country and start leveling the old ones.

Saint John wrote:No new mosques anywhere in this country and start leveling the old ones.

hoagiepete wrote:I have more questions than answers.

It should not be prohibited.

Where is the Muslim's common sense? Are they doing it to antagonize?

It is 2 blocks away. If not there...how many blocks is far enough?

When are the Muslims finally going to do something about their radicals? They need to do something from within.

If one Christian knew another was plotting to kill a bunch of people, would they do nothing, just because they are Christians too?

If you haven't seen the Muslim Demographic video, you should watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Rick wrote:

hoagiepete wrote:I have more questions than answers.

It should not be prohibited.

Where is the Muslim's common sense? Are they doing it to antagonize?

It is 2 blocks away. If not there...how many blocks is far enough?

When are the Muslims finally going to do something about their radicals? They need to do something from within.

If one Christian knew another was plotting to kill a bunch of people, would they do nothing, just because they are Christians too?

If you haven't seen the Muslim Demographic video, you should watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

I guess we'd all better get humpin!

If the USA ever needed a reason to start blowing shit up, this is a reason.
Absofuckinlutely not!!!!
Allowing them to build this is like giving them a ticket so say the ultimate 'fuck you" to America.

There'd better be outrage over this idea. BTW, fuck for brains Obama endorses this.

My crystal ball shows a lot of Muslims getting the fuck beat out of them in the near future.

hoagiepete wrote:

Rick wrote:

hoagiepete wrote:I have more questions than answers.

It should not be prohibited.

Where is the Muslim's common sense? Are they doing it to antagonize?

It is 2 blocks away. If not there...how many blocks is far enough?

When are the Muslims finally going to do something about their radicals? They need to do something from within.

If one Christian knew another was plotting to kill a bunch of people, would they do nothing, just because they are Christians too?

If you haven't seen the Muslim Demographic video, you should watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

I guess we'd all better get humpin!

It is nothing new to breed a people out of their lands. It has happened with some smaller countries already. Kossovo being the most recent that comes to mind. So the smaller countries are being taken over now and the bigger ones (as in the video) are on the near horizon. It is truely a scary situation, one that I hope is not yet a lost cause to try and turn the tide.

FYI: Many Muslims died on 9/11:

Samad Afridi
Ashraf Ahmad
Shabbir Ahmad (45 years old; Windows on the World; leaves wife and 3 children)
Umar Ahmad
Azam Ahsan
Ahmed Ali
Tariq Amanullah (40 years old; Fiduciary Trust Co.; ICNA website team member; leaves wife and 2 children)
Touri Bolourchi (69 years old; United Airlines #175; a retired nurse from Tehran)
Salauddin Ahmad Chaudhury
Abdul K. Chowdhury (30 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Mohammad S. Chowdhury (39 years old; Windows on the World; leaves wife and child born 2 days after the attack)
Jamal Legesse Desantis
Ramzi Attallah Douani (35 years old; Marsh & McLennan)
SaleemUllah Farooqi
Syed Fatha (54 years old; Pitney Bowes)
Osman Gani
Mohammad Hamdani (50 years old)
Salman Hamdani (NYPD Cadet)
Aisha Harris (21 years old; General Telecom)
Shakila Hoque (Marsh & McLennan)
Nabid Hossain
Shahzad Hussain
Talat Hussain
Mohammad Shah Jahan (Marsh & McLennan)
Yasmeen Jamal
Mohammed Jawarta (MAS security)
Arslan Khan Khakwani
Asim Khan
Ataullah Khan
Ayub Khan
Qasim Ali Khan
Sarah Khan (32 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Taimour Khan (29 years old; Karr Futures)
Yasmeen Khan
Zahida Khan
Badruddin Lakhani
Omar Malick
Nurul Hoque Miah (36 years old)
Mubarak Mohammad (23 years old)
Boyie Mohammed (Carr Futures)
Raza Mujtaba
Omar Namoos
Mujeb Qazi
Tarranum Rahim
Ehtesham U. Raja (28 years old)
Ameenia Rasool (33 years old)
Naveed Rehman
Yusuf Saad
Rahma Salie & unborn child (28 years old; American Airlines #11; wife of Michael Theodoridis; 7 months pregnant)
Shoman Samad
Asad Samir
Khalid Shahid (25 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald; engaged to be married in November)
Mohammed Shajahan (44 years old; Marsh & McLennan)
Naseema Simjee (Franklin Resources Inc.'s Fiduciary Trust)
Jamil Swaati
Sanober Syed
Robert Elias Talhami (40 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Michael Theodoridis (32 years old; American Airlines #11; husband of Rahma Salie)
W. Wahid

So, some of these muslims are scattered around on the hallowed ground. However, it might be wiser to build the mosque elsewhere since it's such a sensitive issue to the other 9/11 families. Nobody wins in this situation.

It's an easy program to follow and non discriminatory ; no churches whatsoever within a certain radius of that site.

And to the three who voted yes.......why do you hate America?

SF-Dano wrote:

hoagiepete wrote:

Rick wrote:

hoagiepete wrote:I have more questions than answers.

It should not be prohibited.

Where is the Muslim's common sense? Are they doing it to antagonize?

It is 2 blocks away. If not there...how many blocks is far enough?

When are the Muslims finally going to do something about their radicals? They need to do something from within.

If one Christian knew another was plotting to kill a bunch of people, would they do nothing, just because they are Christians too?

If you haven't seen the Muslim Demographic video, you should watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

I guess we'd all better get humpin!

It is nothing new to breed a people out of their lands. It has happened with some smaller countries already. Kossovo being the most recent that comes to mind. So the smaller countries are being taken over now and the bigger ones (as in the video) are on the near horizon. It is truely a scary situation, one that I hope is not yet a lost cause to try and turn the tide.

Another example of what unintended consequences can occur when working off the liberal agenda. Weren't they saying we all ought to limit our procreating to save the earth? Great idea. The anti-war stance will have the same effect. I wish they would understand we don't live in an ideal world where their idealistic views and dreams can be fulfilled. Wish we did...but we don't.

I agree with those that think it's a matter of what is legal vs what is appropriate. I was listening to someone on Air America today talking about how it is equivalent to a christian church going up near the Murrow building, since Tim McVeigh was a purported christian. I guess I can see some parallel to that, but not really. What about building a shrine to the confederacy in downtown Atlanta? Even though the confederacy was not only about slavery, tons of people relate the confederate flag to slavery and therefore call nearly anyone who raises it a racist. White southerners are expected to be respectful of that history and refrain from doing things that will cause civil unrest.

I personally think this mosque/community center is a really bad idea, and will do more harm than good when it comes to educating people and bringing them together in peace and harmony. JMO.

The church you protest against today might be your church that's protested against tomorrow. Setting a precedent like this, to say who can worship and who can't or where they can worship, is a very slippery slope, especially for Christians who want to continue to worship as they please.

BobbyinTN wrote:The church you protest against today might be your church that's protested against tomorrow. Setting a precedent like this, to say who can worship and who can't or where they can worship, is a very slippery slope, especially for Christians who want to continue to worship as they please.

It isn't a question of who can or can't worship. They have the legal right but they should exercise their moral right to decide not to do something this intolerant.

conversationpc wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:The church you protest against today might be your church that's protested against tomorrow. Setting a precedent like this, to say who can worship and who can't or where they can worship, is a very slippery slope, especially for Christians who want to continue to worship as they please.

It isn't a question of who can or can't worship. They have the legal right but they should exercise their moral right to decide not to do something this intolerant.

But why is it intolerant? There are good Christians and bad Christians. Good Muslims and bad Muslims.

I honestly don't get it. I live in Tennessee where there's a church on every fuckin' corner and while I don't agree with 99% of Christianity, I don't protest those churches being there. Of course I would if they startes some shit like the Mormons with Prop. 8. Mormons suck. LOL

BobbyinTN wrote:

conversationpc wrote:It isn't a question of who can or can't worship. They have the legal right but they should exercise their moral right to decide not to do something this intolerant.

But why is it intolerant? There are good Christians and bad Christians. Good Muslims and bad Muslims.

I honestly don't get it. I live in Tennessee where there's a church on every fuckin' corner and while I don't agree with 99% of Christianity, I don't protest those churches being there. Of course I would if they startes some shit like the Mormons with Prop. 8. Mormons suck. LOL

Having the legal right to do something doesn't mean it should be done. Like it or not and whether or not the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were all Muslim, the perception of the new Mosque being built there is that it's a slap in the face. I would feel the same way if it was a major Christian group wanting to build a church there if the 9/11 attacks had been done by Christian radicals.

Unfortunately, the Imam who's heading this project up has a history of supporting terrorism and terrorist groups, not to mention his blaming of the U.S. for the attacks in the first place. He represents the elements that were responsible for something like that to have happened in the first place.

BobbyinTN wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:The church you protest against today might be your church that's protested against tomorrow. Setting a precedent like this, to say who can worship and who can't or where they can worship, is a very slippery slope, especially for Christians who want to continue to worship as they please.

It isn't a question of who can or can't worship. They have the legal right but they should exercise their moral right to decide not to do something this intolerant.

But why is it intolerant? There are good Christians and bad Christians. Good Muslims and bad Muslims.

I honestly don't get it. I live in Tennessee where there's a church on every fuckin' corner and while I don't agree with 99% of Christianity, I don't protest those churches being there. Of course I would if they startes some shit like the Mormons with Prop. 8. Mormons suck. LOL

Wrong. Fags suck.

conversationpc wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:

conversationpc wrote:It isn't a question of who can or can't worship. They have the legal right but they should exercise their moral right to decide not to do something this intolerant.

But why is it intolerant? There are good Christians and bad Christians. Good Muslims and bad Muslims.

I honestly don't get it. I live in Tennessee where there's a church on every fuckin' corner and while I don't agree with 99% of Christianity, I don't protest those churches being there. Of course I would if they startes some shit like the Mormons with Prop. 8. Mormons suck. LOL

Having the legal right to do something doesn't mean it should be done. Like it or not and whether or not the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were all Muslim, the perception of the new Mosque being built there is that it's a slap in the face. I would feel the same way if it was a major Christian group wanting to build a church there if the 9/11 attacks had been done by Christian radicals.

Unfortunately, the Imam who's heading this project up has a history of supporting terrorism and terrorist groups, not to mention his blaming of the U.S. for the attacks in the first place. He represents the elements that were responsible for something like that to have happened in the first place.

Look man, I think all religion should be wiped off the planet and it would be a better place to live. This is simply the same old story in a long line of stories about who has the best religion and who loves God the most.

Now I agree that anyone supporting terrorism against someone else should not be allowed to do anything in America, BUT, that's a whole other can of worms.

S2M wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

BobbyinTN wrote:The church you protest against today might be your church that's protested against tomorrow. Setting a precedent like this, to say who can worship and who can't or where they can worship, is a very slippery slope, especially for Christians who want to continue to worship as they please.

It isn't a question of who can or can't worship. They have the legal right but they should exercise their moral right to decide not to do something this intolerant.

But why is it intolerant? There are good Christians and bad Christians. Good Muslims and bad Muslims.

I honestly don't get it. I live in Tennessee where there's a church on every fuckin' corner and while I don't agree with 99% of Christianity, I don't protest those churches being there. Of course I would if they startes some shit like the Mormons with Prop. 8. Mormons suck. LOL

Wrong. Fags suck.

If you're lucky, but we'd never touch white trash. LOL

BobbyinTN wrote:Look man, I think all religion should be wiped off the planet and it would be a better place to live.

Aren't you the same guy that said you don't judge people...?