Ask Me Help Desk - Mosque at Ground Zero

Quote:

Originally Posted by XOXOlove

I see it equivalent to a terriost attack because of the fact that it targetted civilians, not mainly othe Japanese soldiers. If Iraqis came here in uniform and bombed us, it would most likely be considered a terrorist attack.

If war were to have been declared and they want to try to come here then no its not a terrorist plot. The act may strike terror. But the fact that it occurred under decleration of war changes the way it is viewed. So far there has been no army in this war on terror. If they wish to put a uniform on and declare themselves then it would end in a few weeks. Big difference.

What is the opinion of the muslim community as far as decrying the extremists for who they are and helping to turn them in ? Im asking because you mentioned you were muslim and Im assuming you practice your faith. So you might have an idea of what is really going on in your own words and opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

If war were to have been declared and they want to try to come here then no its not a terrorist plot. The act may strike terror. But the fact that it occured under decleration of war changes the way it is viewed.

What do we call our attack on Iraq in 2003?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Protestants actually do have a central Figure...The Archbishop of Canterbery

Um, he's the head of the Church of England (Anglican). As I said, Protestants do not have a central figure like a Pope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Certain denominations have a communion at easter

Yeah, Protestants call those "members" fair-weather Christians who commune only once a year on Easter and maybe at Christmas. Protestant churches offer communion as often as weekly, and even more often during Lent and Advent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Does Fox twist stories?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

not nearly as much as all the rest do

In other words, yes, they do. Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XOXOlove

I see it equivalent to a terriost attack because of the fact that it targetted civilians, not mainly othe Japanese soldiers. If Iraqis came here in uniform and bombed us, it would most likely be considered a terrorist attack.

Whoever educated you clearly fed you propaganda. Plain and simple.

Terrorism in WW2 was the Rape of Nanking by Japan... bet they didn't teach that.

Terrorism is what the Japanese did to the Philippines... War Crimes is what the Japanese did to POW's in Burma and the Corrigador Death March (which incidentally I had a relative die on).

What twisted logic considers Hiroshima or Nagasaki terrorism is beyond comprehension. Japan was the aggressor in that war, they brought it upon themselves.

Did they also fail to teach you the Japanese had plenty of advance warning what was going to happen each time if they didn't surrendor... Did they fail to teach you that those deaths were the fault of the Japanese Emporer for failing to act?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

In other words, yes, they do. Thank you.

Its all about Degrees... and they do twist it far less than the others do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yeah, Protestants call those "members" fair-weather Christians who commune only once a year on Easter and maybe at Christmas. Protestant churches offer communion as often as weekly, and even more often during Lent and Advent.

Which denominations do that? None of the several different ones I have attended services do it weekly.

All Lutheran synods offer weekly communion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Um, he's the head of the Church of England (Anglican). As I said, Protestants do not have a central figure like a Pope.

He's also a sort of defacto head of the rest too, But the structure is nothing like the Catholic Church. It essentually functions autonomously, not under his direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

All Lutheran synods offer weekly communion.

OK, that's one of those I've never attended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

He's also a sort of defacto head of the rest too

No, he's not! If you said that to any Lutheran, Baptist, United Methodist, Nazarene, Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Presbyterian, or Bible Church members, they would add your name to their prayer circle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

No, he's not! If you said that to any Lutheran, Baptist, United Methodist, Nazarene, Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Presbyterian, or Bible Church members, they would add your name to their prayer circle.

Don't get me started on the Jehovahs Witnesses... I'd like to excommunicate THOSE pepole from the Christian faith if I could. Lets just say I have my personal reasons...

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Don't get me started on the Jehovahs Witnesses.....I'd like to excommunicate THOSE pepole from the Christian faith if I could. Lets just say I have my personal reasons.....

Your enemy list is getting longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Your enemy list is getting longer.

Well my issue with them involves several people I know with severe brain Damage (both were Children) or permanent Death (a single unit of blood would have saved that one) as a result of their bizarre teachings. All of which were completely unessesary.

Both Children were refused medical treatment as very young children, high fever cause the damage...

THe Death was a third party that refused to allow the blood to the patient based on HIS beliefs... the person that needed it was not able to speak for themselves to refuse it.

Adults are responsible for their own Stupidity... but when young children are made to pay for it, I find a huge problem with that. Both kids were brother and sister and didn't happen at the same time but years apart.

Unbelievable and surreal are the two words that come to my mind concerning the building of a mosque so close to ground zero.

I think they should build one smack dab where United Airlines flight 93 went down in Shanksville too.

Come ON! This isn't about the "right" to do it. This is about using a little wisdom and common sense. I have NEVER heard of such BAD TASTE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classyT

. I have NEVER heard of such BAD TASTE.

From a Canadian perspective, I have to agree, especially as we have had our own problems with terror cells here in Ontario. Still not settled after four years; these guys are still in and out of court.

I couldn't believe that is what they had agreed to do. So is it really a done deal?
I am appalled.

Tick

Quote:

Originally Posted by tickle

from a Canadian perspective, I have to agree, especially as we have had our own problems with terror cells here in Ontario. Still not settled after four years; these guys are still in and out of court.

I couldnt believe that is what they had agreed to do. So is it really a done deal?
I am appalled.

tick

New York City is a big Union Stronghold...

It isn't going to be build without Union Labor... and most of these Union People are salt of the earth type of people had friends and family Killed In the Name of Allah by those terrorists they want to honor. I have a lot of Teamster friends up there, most of them would beat the hell out of anyone that even tried to build on that site. I'd likely take vacation time to join them on the line too.

I think the odds of any Union allowing it to be built are very, very slim. And trying to bring in non-union labor will bring strikes that would shut the city down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classyT

Come ON! This isn't about the "right" to do it. This is about using a little wisdom and common sense. I have NEVER heard of such BAD TASTE.

Yes, they have the right to do it. Whether it's in bad taste is beside the point. (Wanna meet there in a couple of years for a nice game of racket ball and then hit the juice bar afterwards?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes, they have the right to do it. Whether or not it's in bad taste is beside the point. (Wanna meet there in a couple of years for a nice game of racket ball and then hit the juice bar afterwards?)

Again... Exactly WHERE is this RIGHT enumerated... there is a big difference between a RIGHT and priveledge. THere is no RIGHT for foreign entities to build anything... in fact there is no RIGHT for Americans to build anything.

After all if they have a RIGHT to build a Terrorist Memorial, we have a RIGHT to Burn it down as an act of free speech.

If it was a RIGHT, Zoning laws would be unconstitutional.

I didn't sleep through Civics and in fact I did really well in it... we had to memorize the bill of rights and while I don't remember them all specifically 35 years later, I certainly knew there was none giving a right to biuld anything anywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Again....Exactly WHERE is this RIGHT enumerated....there is a big difference between a RIGHT and priveledge. THere is no RIGHT for foreign entities to build anything....in fact there is no RIGHT for Americans to build anything.

After all if they have a RIGHT to build a Terrorist Memorial, we have a RIGHT to Burn it down as an act of free speech.

If it was a RIGHT, Zoning laws would be unconstitutional.

The zoning laws are not an issue. The builders are American. Once you figure out how to spell "priveledge" correctly, we will discuss the difference between that and a right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The zoning laws are not an issue. The builders are American. Once you figure out how to spell "priveledge" correctly, we will discuss the difference between that and a right.

You called it a right... the lefties call it a Right... however Christians have no RIGHT to Publicly and collectively practive their religion.

If it's a right... it will be specifically called out and would have a ratification date. I'm still waiting for those who claim Iran, The Taliban or Saudi Arabia who is paying for this structure is who will own it... and is being kept secret... HAVE no rights... They aren't even US citizens.

Zoning laws can't prempt a constitutional right... if it was subject to being given and taken away so casually, then its not a right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

You called it a right...the lefties call it a Right....however Christians have no RIGHT to Publically and collectively practive their religion.

Christians publicly and collectively practice their religion all the time. Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

If I lived closer to you, I'd drive over and meet you at a local restaurant so we could pow-wow in person. I think we would get a lot more accomplished than we are here. I'd even treat you to a meal and a few beers.

I think this is a local zoning issue. If it's zoned for a community center and someone wants to buy the property and build a community center, why not? Hard to imagine all this hubub if it was a YWCA or Jewish Community Center. Sheesh. Anyway, it's up to New York. Do I tell Colorado Springs what kind of churches they can build within view of the Rockies?

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

Do I tell Colorado Springs what kind of churches they can build within view of the Rockies?

Now you've got me thinking about all the subdivisions butting up against national forest lands and even state and national parks. I drive to see the Tetons or the Colorado Front Range, and end up looking at split levels and McMansions. Don't let me get started on Las Vegas.

It's private property, and the builders have rights.

This is not a question of a First Amendment right - no one denies they have that right. It is a question of doing the "right" thing.

The developers have stated that the center/mosque would be a place for all faiths to meet and encourage tolerance and understanding among different faiths (in addition to being a "prayer space" for Muslims).

As worthy as that motivation may be, by now it should be apparent to the developers that this original idea has backfired to such a degree that the great majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to the building, causing not tolerance but a deeper mistrust of Islam.

The developer, Sharif el-Gamal, has hardened his position so that understanding and tolerance have taken a back seat, and now it's all about his right to build.

When the Carmelite nuns established a convent in front of Auschwitz to pray for all the victims, the Jewish community world-wide saw it as co-opting a space that was sacred to the memory of the Shoah.

Pope John Paul II asked the nuns to move their convent up the road a piece, which they did. Common sense prevailed.

The developers have a marvelous chance to strike a blow for understanding by doing what the nuns did. Move it "up the road a piece".

And I don't think Western civilization will collapse if the developers do not stand on their First Amendment rights - in fact, they will have exhibited an understanding that will go far for tolerance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

This is not a question of a First Amendment right - no one denies they have that right. It is a question of doing the "right" thing.....in fact, they will have exhibited an understanding that will go far for tolerance.

Hello again, A:

Are you a gun owner? Would you get rid of them, because I think it's the "right" thing to do? Do you CARE what I think about your guns? What does MY opinion have to do with YOUR rights? What about if your gun offends my sensibilities? Would you be "tolerant" of my views and throw it away?? Would you be "understanding"?

No, you wouldn't, nor should you.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

Move it "up the road a piece".

And how far is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, A:

Are you a gun owner? Would you get rid of them, because I think it's the "right" thing to do? Do you CARE what I think about your guns? What does MY opinion have to do with YOUR rights? What about if your gun offends my sensibilities? Would you be "tolerant" of my views and throw it away??? Would you be "understanding"?

No, you wouldn't, nor should you.

excon

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Here's one for you. What about you own a home and Wamart wants it for a new store. The city county decides since you don't feel like moving then they will use eminant domain. Where are the rights of the individual then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Now you've got me thinking about all the subdivisions butting up against national forest lands and even state and national parks. I drive to see the Tetons or the Colorado Front Range, and end up looking at split levels and McMansions. Don't let me get started on Las Vegas.

It's private property, and the builders have rights.

So did the Branch Davidians... we all know what happened there.

August 12, 2010 --

A Marist poll found that 53% of the residents of Manhattan -- that island in elitist, unreal America where the thing will actually be built -- are solidly in support of the "Ground Zero Mosque," with 31% opposed and 16% undecided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Here's one for you. What about you own a home and Wamart wants it for a new store. The city county decides since you dont feel like moving then they will use eminant domain. Where are the rights of the individual then?

How about the flip side of that... Walmart wants to open a store... they have a vacant commercially zoned lot available, but the local politicians fight to prevent them from building the store... where are Walmarts rights to build at? And that Happens MANY places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, A:

Are you a gun owner? Would you get rid of them, because I think it's the "right" thing to do? Do you CARE what I think about your guns? What does MY opinion have to do with YOUR rights? What about if your gun offends my sensibilities? Would you be "tolerant" of my views and throw it away??? Would you be "understanding"?

No, you wouldn't, nor should you.

excon

I think the analogy is weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

How about the flip side of that....Walmart wants to open a store...they have a vacant commercially zoned lot availible, but the local politicians fight to prevent them from building the store....where are Walmarts rights to build at? And that Happens MANY places.

New York is one of them that doesn't allow Walmart to build any stores because they are non union.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Here's one for you. What about you own a home and Wamart wants it for a new store. The city county decides since you dont feel like moving then they will use eminant domain. Where are the rights of the individual then?

There is no argument about ownership. The NYC property has been purchased. Eminent domain is not even being discussed. Why are you tossing in a red herring?

(Residents have successfully fought eminent domain.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

There is no argument about ownership. The NYC property has been purchased. Eminent domain is not even being discussed. Why are you tossing in a red herring?

(Residents have successfully fought eminent domain.)

It was tied to the post made by Exy. Hes always drawing from the 2nd amendment well. Lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

And how far is that?

The literal distance is not at issue - the symbolism is the crux of the matter.

Even one or two blocks further uptown would de-fuse the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asking

I think this is a local zoning issue. If it's zoned for a community center and someone wants to buy the property and build a community center, why not? Hard to imagine all this hubub if it was a YWCA or Jewish Community Center. Sheesh. Anyway, it's up to New York. Do I tell Colorado Springs what kind of churches they can build within view of the Rockies?

Really? Well neither of those groups killed 3,000 innocent Americans in one day in the name of their "god" whileST many with the same religious views and/OR name danced and "hubub" around the world.

Ex,

I don't know much about the TEA party... because I'm not very political... BUT>>.

This isn't about "Rights"... this is about "Respect".

Have we become so concerned about our "rights" that we have lost sight of good common sense? It baffles me...

No ONE is saying a muslim can't worship their god or build a mosque in this country. Seriously?? WHO CARES?. but REALLLY?? Really? It needs to be this close to ground zero??

It is a shame the innocent victims ( atheists, christians AND muslims) on 9/11 can't voice their opinions on this matter.

I PERSONALLY think it is time to STOP thinking about "our rights"( boo hooo hooo) and think of their lost lives!

Respect... I think I hear Aretha...

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

You know you keep drawing from that same well my friend. In cities like San Francisco and others they have tried just that. Look at the limits set by California on ownership.

Hello again, dad:

You make my point for me. There IS an assault on our rights. Government from the top to the bottom doesn't like 'em one bit, and would like to get rid of 'em. I was just asking Athos how he FELT about it. Yes, I picked a right I think HE might enjoy. I wondered if he could empathize with another citizen who's rights were under assault.

Of course, the POINT I was making, IS we shouldn't be helping the government DO that. Instead, we should help our fellow citizens KEEP their rights - even the ones WE don't particularly like. We would DO that, so that the ones we DO like are protected too. That's all.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:

You make my point for me. There IS an assault on our rights. Government from the top to the bottom doesn't like 'em one bit, and would like to get rid of 'em. I was just asking Athos how he FELT about it. Yes, I picked a right I think HE might enjoy. I wondered if he could empathize with another citizen who's rights were under assault.

Of course, the POINT I was making, IS we shouldn't be helping the government DO that. Instead, we should help our fellow citizens KEEP their rights - even the ones WE don't particularly like. We would DO that, so that the ones we DO like are protected too. That's all.

excon

I understand. Its just somebody has to give you grief every once in awhile ;)