Ground Zero Mosque

[Tawnos]

Mecca.

Seriously:

Out of the shadow of the death wrought in their religion's name.

So any place where the KKK has burned crosses and lynched innocent people, no churches should be built? Any place a Christian terrorist has bombed an abortion clinic, no churches should be built? When the 1996 Olympics were bombed by a Christian radical, should that place have become off limits? If not, why not?

 

[Tawnos]

Don't attack the messenger (yet) -- Jon Stewart did a brilliant take on the mosque issue. He summed it all up with an apology to the NRA, and played video of Charlton Heston saying we must not demand that others give up their rights, just because someone else committed a horrible act.

Heston was speaking of Columbine, of course, and responding to the lefty hand-wringing about the NRA convention in Denver not long after that. It's a great analogy: those "patriotic Americans" who object to this mosque are little different from Sarah Brady.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

Love it.

 

[eye95]

So any place where the KKK has burned crosses and lynched innocent people, no churches should be built? Any place a Christian terrorist has bombed an abortion clinic, no churches should be built? When the 1996 Olympics were bombed by a Christian radical, should that place have become off limits? If not, why not?

Do not put words in my mouth.

 

[Deanimator]

Why is it in bad taste? Where could it possibly be built that it wouldn't be in bad taste? Why is that place okay but not where they're currently looking?

Hypothetical:

A 100' statue honoring the B-29 crews who firebombed Japan and helped end the war in the Pacific. Includes an eternal flame. Locations,

Wright Patterson AFB - Tasteful?

Downtown Tokyo - Tasteful?

 

[Tawnos]

Hypothetical:

A 100' statue honoring the B-29 crews who firebombed Japan and helped end the war in the Pacific. Includes an eternal flame. Locations,

Wright Patterson AFB - Tasteful?

Downtown Tokyo - Tasteful?

How is this related to a building that has no relationship to those who attacked America in 2001? Are you really claiming that Park 51 is "honoring the terrorists who flew planes into buildings"?

 

[Tawnos]

Do not put words in my mouth.

Hello eye95. My name is Tim. Occasionally, I see things so dumb I have to get out of my normal internet self and explain something I thought was so very simple, so fundamental, that no tard online could mess it up. Today is one of those days.

You see, when a person ends a sentence with a question mark (it looks like this: ?), that generally means they are asking a question. For instance, saying "is it okay if we go to the movies?" is an attempt to ascertain your thoughts regarding a collective trip to a motion picture house. It is not an attempt to "put words in [your] mouth]", but rather a common way to ferret out the position of a person who is speaking on a subject.

The question you were asked is simple, repeated numerous ways to illustrate a point. Do you support it when Christians build churches near places where acts of Christian terrorism have occurred? Examples were provided vis a vis the KKK, 1996 Olympics, abortion clinics, but others exist as well. Rather than addressing that question, you've stumblingly side-stepped it, avoiding the possibility of having to think. However, I have now called you on your intentional obtuseness. Care to stop dodging the question?

 

[eye95]

Hello eye95. My name is Tim. Occasionally, I see things so dumb I have to get out of my normal internet self and explain something I thought was so very simple, so fundamental, that no tard online could mess it up. Today is one of those days.

You see, when a person ends a sentence with a question mark (it looks like this: ?), that generally means they are asking a question. For instance, saying "is it okay if we go to the movies?" is an attempt to ascertain your thoughts regarding a collective trip to a motion picture house. It is not an attempt to "put words in [your] mouth]", but rather a common way to ferret out the position of a person who is speaking on a subject.

The question you were asked is simple, repeated numerous ways to illustrate a point. Do you support it when Christians build churches near places where acts of Christian terrorism have occurred? Examples were provided vis a vis the KKK, 1996 Olympics, abortion clinics, but others exist as well. Rather than addressing that question, you've stumblingly side-stepped it, avoiding the possibility of having to think. However, I have now called you on your intentional obtuseness. Care to stop dodging the question?

If you have an adult, rational question, ask it, and I will answer.

If you are going to imply through moronic questions that I said something that I did not, I will not answer. I will just question the forthrightness of your rhetoric.

If you want to, you can easily make the same point you made earlier in an adult way. Moving on until such time as you choose to make such rational posts. I won't play your game.

 

[Tawnos]

If you have an adult, rational question, ask it, and I will answer.

If you are going to imply through moronic questions that I said something that I did not, I will not answer. I will just question the forthrightness of your rhetoric.

If you want to, you can easily make the same point you made earlier in an adult way. Moving on until such time as you choose to make such rational posts. I won't play your game.

You still avoid the simple question, both mature, akin, and rational: would you oppose a church being built near where Christian terrorists have acted?

The only game being played here seems to be dodge ball, a childish endeavor of avoiding answering the simple question I put forth.

 

[eye95]

The only game being played here seems to be dodge ball, a childish endeavor of avoiding answering the simple question I put forth.

I tried.

Off to the ignore heap with you.

I will be happy to respectfully answer the question if someone else will pose it in an adult and respectful way. I don't play Internet message board games. I just stop interacting with those who do.

 

[Deanimator]

How is this related to a building that has no relationship to those who attacked America in 2001? Are you really claiming that Park 51 is "honoring the terrorists who flew planes into buildings"?

Apparently, either:

• The building has no relationship to Islam.
• The 9/11 attacks weren't done in the name of Islam.

You remind me of Patrick J. Buchanan ranting about how if it weren't for WWII, Hitler wouldn't have tried to exterminate the Jews, or Gar Alperovitz arguing that the atomic bombs were unnecessary because the Japanese were "beaten" and "about to surrender". All three of you make perfect sense... so long as you discard all facts and reason.

But hey, you might actually believe that an armed struggle to impose sharia law and a global caliphate have NOTHING whatever to do with Islam... in which case you probably see no reason NOT to build a STATE Shinto shrine IN the Arizona memorial, and a Serbian Orthodox church ON TOP OF the mass graves of the Muslim men and boys murdered at Srebrenica.

 

[Deanimator]

You still avoid the simple question, both mature, akin, and rational: would you oppose a church being built near where Christian terrorists have acted?

I just DID. And YES, I WOULD, if Christianity were the MOTIVATION for the terrorism.

Your "question" is quintessentially dishonest, as it's the equivalent of asking if I'd oppose an orthotics center near ground zero if Mohammed Atta had had a prosthesis. If Atta had been an Elk, I wouldn't oppose an Elk's lodge at Ground Zero, because 9/11 had NOTHING to do with the Elks, nor have I seen Elks on TV celebrating the mass murder of 3,000 people as a great "triumph" for the Elks.

You will now change the subject, run away without addressing that, or BOTH.

If this were usenet, you'd probably use a few racial, religious or ethnic slurs, but you'd just get booted for it here. I've known your type since the mid '80s, first in FidoNet, then in usenet.

 

[Plankton]

Questions

1. Is it true that the building in question is the ONLY one denied landmark status on the entire block?

2. Is it true that parts of one of the planes hit this buliding?

3. If #2 is true, could some of the plane's contents also have hit this building?

4. If some of those contents were human, would not this be a grave site?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Hubris fight Hubris fight!!!!!!

 

[Tawnos]

I just DID. And YES, I WOULD, if Christianity were the MOTIVATION for the terrorism.

Your "question" is quintessentially dishonest, as it's the equivalent of asking if I'd oppose an orthotics center near ground zero if Mohammed Atta had had a prosthesis. If Atta had been an Elk, I wouldn't oppose an Elk's lodge at Ground Zero, because 9/11 had NOTHING to do with the Elks, nor have I seen Elks on TV celebrating the mass murder of 3,000 people as a great "triumph" for the Elks.

You will now change the subject, run away without addressing that, or BOTH.

If this were usenet, you'd probably use a few racial, religious or ethnic slurs, but you'd just get booted for it here. I've known your type since the mid '80s, first in FidoNet, then in usenet.

Islam itself was no more the motivation for the plane terrorism than Christianity itself was a motivation for the bombs in Atlanta, or the shooting of Dr. Tiller. To say they are is asinine and implies you cannot differentiate between the core teachings of the vast majority of Muslims and the crazy extremists.

To use your example regarding the Elks: There are a lot of Elks' lodges around the country. Perhaps one group of them decides to start pushing a radical agenda of "patriotism through purging". The rest of the lodges disagree with that particular agenda, but that particular lodge gets enough followers that eventually one of them goes and does something crazy, say, bombing an ACLU building because they dare sue over public prayer. The other Elks' lodges disown that radical branch, and are trying to open a new lodge, a few blocks from where the ACLU building was bombed. This is protested by a group of bigoted idiots who cannot tell the difference between those things the Elks believe and aspire to, and what a small radical fringe does. I would be arguing just as vehemently with those idiots as I am with you, because the actions of the few are not always indicative of the thoughts of the many.

 

[Deanimator]

Islam itself was no more the motivation for the plane terrorism than Christianity itself was a motivation for the bombs in Atlanta, or the shooting of Dr. Tiller. To say they are is asinine and implies you cannot differentiate between the core teachings of the vast majority of Muslims and the crazy extremists.

Islam was no more NOT the motivation for 9/11 than Christianity was NOT the motivation for the Spanish Inquisition and the anti-Jewish pogroms of the 19th century. Anything else is not just a lie, but a stupid lie.

 

[Ruby]

I am of two minds on this and I suspect some other people are also. Yes, they do have the right to build their mosque there if they choose to and meet all the requirements to do so. I would question why that particular spot. Common sense would dictate that doing so would upset a lot of people; they had to know that when they chose that particular real estate. Call it guilt by association if you like. It may not be fair, but it is what it is. Besides the logical thinking mind we also have our feelings and emotions, and for those of us (most of us, I assume) who witnessed that horrific event, it is our feelings that are involved more than any rational thinking. It's hallowed ground; 3,000 people were murdered on that spot. If a Christian church were built there, you wouldn't hear a peep from anyone. I still question why that particular spot when there already is a mosque 2 blocks away. It just seems like rubbing salt in the wound and I think a lot of people see it that way. Not that it is right or fair, it's just how a lot of people feel. We WERE wounded that day and forced to realize how vulnerable we are. Blaming all or even some of the members of a particular group because of the actions of a few certainly isn't fair or just but it is the way a large number of humans operate. We all do it all the time whether we are conscious of it or not. If you are harmed by a member of a group, you tend to avoid other members of that group to avoid further harm. It's human nature, folks. It happens to us, as OCers. Someone who is an OCer does something bad, gets into trouble, etc. pretty soon other people see all OCers the same way. Which is why there is such an emphais on how we conduct ourselves on and off this forum. This situation pits our rational thinking mind against our emotional mind, both need to be heard and respected. Would you feel differently if it was Christians or Jews who flew those planes into the towers? Would you object if it was a Christian church or a synagogue that someone of those faiths wanted to build there? This situation is precisely difficult because it forces us to look at our prejudices and biases. Personally, I don't believe in religion of any kind. There have been more heinous things committed on human beings in the name of God, or religion, than anything else in all of human history. That is not to say that I don't have spiritual beliefs, because I do, but I do not believe in any formal, declared religion as they are practiced today. I respect those who do believe in their religions, I have nothing against them. It's just not my thing. JMO, do what you want with it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Good post Ruby, and good incite into why it's a contentious issue. I too think if it's private property and they want to build there who the hell are anyone to stop them.

This is why we are not a democracy, the founding fathers detested that idea, they knew there is tyranny in "mob rule" also, and our rights remain supreme. If we truly love this country and our constitution we will uphold the rights of others even when we detest or are upset by their actions. This type of fear mongering has eroded so many freedoms and have grown our government exponentially. Think Brady Bill. Patriot Act. Marijuana tax act. National Firearms Act (1934 and 1968), Creation of the Fed, on and on. Gasp if we don't pass this bill all horror will let loose......the government is the answer....

What freedoms are those who want to stop Muslims from building here willing to give up? That is the bottom line. When you want to outlaw this and that because of your own religious or moral convictions you open the door for the government to then take action against you and your activities in the future when the "majority" don't like what you do.

 

[Tawnos]

I am of two minds on this and I suspect some other people are also. Yes, they do have the right to build their mosque there if they choose to and meet all the requirements to do so. I would question why that particular spot. Common sense would dictate that doing so would upset a lot of people; they had to know that when they chose that particular real estate. Call it guilt by association if you like. It may not be fair, but it is what it is. Besides the logical thinking mind we also have our feelings and emotions, and for those of us (most of us, I assume) who witnessed that horrific event, it is our feelings that are involved more than any rational thinking. It's hallowed ground; 3,000 people were murdered on that spot. If a Christian church were built there, you wouldn't hear a peep from anyone. I still question why that particular spot when there already is a mosque 2 blocks away. It just seems like rubbing salt in the wound and I think a lot of people see it that way. Not that it is right or fair, it's just how a lot of people feel. We WERE wounded that day and forced to realize how vulnerable we are. Blaming all or even some of the members of a particular group because of the actions of a few certainly isn't fair or just but it is the way a large number of humans operate. We all do it all the time whether we are conscious of it or not. If you are harmed by a member of a group, you tend to avoid other members of that group to avoid further harm. It's human nature, folks. It happens to us, as OCers. Someone who is an OCer does something bad, gets into trouble, etc. pretty soon other people see all OCers the same way. Which is why there is such an emphais on how we conduct ourselves on and off this forum. This situation pits our rational thinking mind against our emotional mind, both need to be heard and respected. Would you feel differently if it was Christians or Jews who flew those planes into the towers? Would you object if it was a Christian church or a synagogue that someone of those faiths wanted to build there? This situation is precisely difficult because it forces us to look at our prejudices and biases. Personally, I don't believe in religion of any kind. There have been more heinous things committed on human beings in the name of God, or religion, than anything else in all of human history. That is not to say that I don't have spiritual beliefs, because I do, but I do not believe in any formal, declared religion as they are practiced today. I respect those who do believe in their religions, I have nothing against them. It's just not my thing. JMO, do what you want with it.

I'd point out the link KBCraig put up earlier. I think it best summarizes how two-faced people have been about this, and how there should be no conflict of emotion and reason here. The group responsible for the atrocious attacks are as related to Park 51 as I am related to, say, Stalin.

 

[Deanimator]

The group responsible for the atrocious attacks are as related to Park 51 as I am related to, say, Stalin.

So then you're saying that they ARE related to Al Qaeda?

 

[Ruby]

So then you're saying that they ARE related to Al Qaeda?

No, he's saying there is no relationship at all between the two.