Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

:) I think one of my teeth must have been picking up Fox News' frequency. I don't know what came over me.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Well thank you for that. I now have "So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye" going round and round in my head. :frown:

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Maybe this will help. :p

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

I have had no real previous interest in this thread but thought I would post this article as it is relevant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nd-zero-mosque

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Pretty much on the money...big hoo hah over not much..

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

I've always liked Charlie Brooker. He's not on the telly nearly enough.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

My answer is NO

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Are you knee jerking or do you have a rationale?

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

The question is "should they", so it seems a fair enough reply, no they shouldnt.

Of course, if what was proposed was ACTUALLY a mosque, and were it to ACTUALLY be at ground zero, it might be a question worth exploring, as to my mind that would clearly be taking the piss, but as they ACTUALLY want to buildis not a mosque, and they dont intend placing it anywhere near ground zero, its largely an academic question at this point.

One does rather despair though at the place that the US is at regarding muslims and tolerance in general. Sending some of the military hardware from Afghanistan to Pakistan to help with the disaster there would probably have more impact on the "hearts and minds" of the muslim world than 9 years of conflict have so far.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

I started typing a reply to this, but the dumb idiotic republican ideals of the USA piss me off so much. Very condensed version...
At the end of the day, one of the pinnacle ideas behind the USA is religious freedom. It's the First Amendment, that's before guns...freedom of religion.
At the end of the day all other issues of taste ect are mute. Do they have the right. Yes.
If not just how far away can you build a mosque from that site, 1 mile, 10 miles, 100 miles, 1000 miles? Just what mile marker show's respect.
When does it become alright to build a religious building near the WTC, what is the correct distance for Muslims in the USA to express their Allah given American right of religious freedom?

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

A couple of blocks, just enough to avoid an unseemly display.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Definately one of the lesser insiteful posts I've read on here.......

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

It is a couple of blocks away.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Your a bit of a smart ass hardly worthy of a reply but for the other folks, my Rationale is that Muslims should not be allowed to have a place of worship close to ground zero no more then if the Germans built their Plish embassy beside Auschwitz, Americans setting up in Hiroshima or the erecting of Cromwells statue in Wexford.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Comparing the building of a so-called mosque in new York with building a church in Riyadh isn't an exact comparison. Saudi Arabia's laws are different to the US's, and in each country rules are rules, whether we agree with them or not.

Saudi Arabia is an extremist hotbed, and as such have very strict rules. The US has the Constitution and many legal freedoms. US planning laws allow for many things that Saudi religious law doesn't.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

And anyway, it's not a mosque.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

I suggest that the idea of the Muslims as a nation hostile to the US doesn't hold because:

- there's no Muslim nation

- some Muslims are Americans

And, yes, I have a nice arse, thank you for noticing.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

I dont think anyone is arguing they have no right to do it, but just because one has the right to do something doesnt mean its necessarily the best thing to do under the circumstances.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Why not, even if that was what is proposed (instead of a cultural centre over 200m away)

Aside from the false comparison between the Holocaust or the atomic bomb and the 11 September attack, and ignoring for a moment the differences in time-frame, I'd have thought a German cultural centre at Auschwitz or an American cultural centre in Hiroshima would go a long way to dispelling ill-informed myths and engaging in constructive dialogue. Knee-jerk anti-Muslim sentiment helps nobody except those who seek to drive a wedge between Islam and Western society.

Again, not a sensible comparison. Nobody's suggesting that a statue of Osama bin Laden be erected at the WTC site. The comparison I think you need in this context would be an Anglican church in Wexford - not unlike St Iberius, a Church of Ireland (Anglican) establishment in the middle of Wexford. http://www.discoverireland.ie/Search...stItemID=78136

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

It's the principle and i beg to differ on Muslim Nation, how about Saudi Arabia.:ohmy:

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

The Muslims of the world do not form a nation, such as Germany or the US. What's the principle?

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

"Tit for tat"... no churches in Saudi Arabia, so no saudi funded mosques in New York?


or perhaps "Not in my back yard" best describes it... a traditional british concept I think.


List of muslim nations for you here by the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rity_countries

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Falsely equates Islam and Saudi Arabia. Falsely assumes churches to be symbols of the US.

I'm unable to see how the NIMBY idea applies in this case.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Yes, there are nations that incorporate Islamic principles into their governance but the Muslim people of the world are not one nation, so comparing Muslimdom to, say, Germany makes no sense.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Wow this is still going on. I refer again to post #38 and stand by it.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Islam is the official religion. Muslim is a cultural distinction.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Who said it was anything to do with nation states as opposed to religous majorities? In what way is Saudi Arabia not equatable with Islam anyway, its a "100% muslim islamic state"

Article one of the constitution of Saudi Arabia is You cant see that the majority of the population of new york is non muslim and might not welcome a muslim center close to the site of a (deranged lunatic) muslim (fringe) terrorist attack?

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

It ended with "nuff said", wouldn't standing by it mean posting nothing?

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

I am clearly under-caffeinated as this point seems irrelevant. The christian people of the world are not one nation either?

And yet somehow there has been nations in conflict on and off, muslim vs christian, for the better part of a thousand years or more, regardless of how you want to label the sides.

The US coalition is not intended to be seen as a Christian force, its non denominational, with people of all faiths present I guess, but as the majority religion in the US is Christianity its easy to see how its seen that way from outside.

I would say you could equally argue that the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida are such a loony fringe of Islam that in general they are no more representative of Islam as the coalition forces are of Christianity.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

It's implied here:

"Your a bit of a smart ass hardly worthy of a reply but for the other folks, my Rationale is that Muslims should not be allowed to have a place of worship close to ground zero no more then if the Germans built their Plish embassy beside Auschwitz, Americans setting up in Hiroshima or the erecting of Cromwells statue in Wexford."

Muslims are equated to Germans and the Plish.


Yes, but not all Muslims are Saudis.


Of course, it's a Jewish town.

They might not welcome Donald Trump either but, if he can get funding, he can build his monstrosities, that's just the way of the planning process. A non-mosque isn't likely to run foul of any planning regulations and, since the non-mosque isn't even at the location over which there is such drama, I can see no reason why it shouldn't go about its business unfussed over.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

I label them religionists. Where you have religion you have unnecessary pain and suffering.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

The US military is a secular thing though, it not (supposed) to represent any one religion. Its not quite the same as the Knights Templar riding to slay the infidel.

No religion in North Korea, and thats a fine example of no pain and suffering no doubt:rolleyes: Its not religion thats the problem, its extremists. Take away religion and they will only fixate on something else. Big-endians and Little-endians come to mind if you know your Jonathan Swift.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Quite, but that wasnt the question was it.

Taken in isolation the question was "Should they or shouldnt they build a mosque at "Ground Zero"? So lets not let the facts get in the way;)

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

I don't say all bad things are connected with religion, I accept that people do bad things for reasons not associated with religion. However, if you ask what's the matter with these Christians and Muslims that they have to keep killing each other, the answer is that they have religion. Eliminate the religion and you'd have a better world, not a perfect one.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

It would be in poor taste to do so but it's in New York, waddyawant?

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

You dont think they would fight over wealth, or power, or access to water supplies, or, heaven forbid the thought, oil, instead? I dont think the current conflict has all that much to do with religion to be honest. Not on one side at least, and perhaps not on the other either.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

Apparently I was wrong, it does happen occasionally ( but don't tell the wife ).

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

This tangent derives from your:

"And yet somehow there has been nations in conflict on and off, muslim vs christian, for the better part of a thousand years or more, regardless of how you want to label the sides."

Muslims vs. Christians is a fight over religion. Yes, absent religion and they might fight over something else but religion serves to divide and create conflict, it's something we ought to be able to eliminate.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

It also serves as a basis for many organisations (and individuals) that do great good in the world too. Perhaps overall they balance each other out.

Re: "Ground Zero" Mosque. Should they or shouldn't they?
 

It's true that not all mentally ill people are dangerous maniacs.