• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama comes out in support of Ground Zero mosque

obama's correct, cordoba does have the right to proceed

but the president is a fool to interject himself, now occupying center spotlight of this in-your-face issue

he can't help it, moves like this are in his dna, he's hardwired

yes, rauf has the right to build

his neighbors have equal license to tell him how they feel

and since he really does want to improve relations with em, he'll have to move

just a matter of time

ask ksm
 
Intolerance Zoning - Swampland - TIME.com

tell it to 50% of empire state dems, joe, you prominent journo-lister, you

personification of the "professional left," what were the results of your urinalysis, joe?

is that it, barry, are you trying to get back in with the net-rooters?
 
Agent Ferris said:
The only accepted views in all five mainstream Islamic sects are that the penalties for apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and/or premarital sex are capital and/or corporal punishment. That is the only accepted mainstream version of Islam which makes it the clear enemy of individual liberty and antithetical to the liberal secularism upon which this country was founded.
Click to expand...

you are mixing everything, and have no idea about Islam, in Turkey Majority people 99% are muslims, but no one is punished in any way you think, cuz Turkey is a secular country. Another example, in Ottoman era non-muslims had their own churches,schools, judges,courts ,etc. ,and The ottoman empire was an Islamic empire, its sultans were also khalif.

you are talking about what you do have no idea or little information.
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
good, mr rauf has his right

but since he really does want to improve relations with his neighbors he should (and he will, in time) VOLUNTARILY move this thing elsewhere

he'll do so outta respect for all the idiots in his neighborhood he's so thoughtlessly upset

mr obama put the seal on it, this issue is now gonna EXPLODE

ksm will have his manhattan trial in the courtroom of his equivalent of lance ito before the cornerstone for this mosque is physically laid

ie, never

politics persistently prevails

stay classy
Click to expand...

Why should he change the planned location? The mosque isn't being built at Ground Zero, just near it approximately two blocks away.

I greatly understand the sensativety issue here. The decision for Iman Feisal to build this mosque so close to Ground Zero doesn't just affect those friends and family members who lost loved one that faithful day. This will affect every American, all of us - Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Christian, Protestant, Jew and even true followers of the Muslim faith as well. We're all affected by this on some emotional or philisophical level, but as I've said earlier, if we are a nation of laws and we claim to uphold certain basic human rights, how can we in good faith deny this man the right to built this mosque wherever he wants as long as such isn't built directly on hallowed ground?

I found this article that may held shed some light on the matter and calm the emotional uprising. As author and orator Steven A. Covey once said, "Seek first to understand, then be understood." I'm trying...it's hard particularly on this very issue. But I am trying. I think we all should.
 
Last edited:
charles krauthammer bespeaks pretty powerfully the perspectives of 50% of ny dems (if you stop long enough to listen to em)

washingtonpost.com

this is what it's come to, what you've wrought, barry

you got crack-screened klein back on your side, but the overwhelming majority of new yorkers and americans find their more apt spokesperson on this heartfelt issue is CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

caveat: the wheelchair bound lawyer AND licensed psychologist, a great man, demonstrably, sure doesn't speak for me, here
 
Last edited:
soguks said:
you are mixing everything, and have no idea about Islam, in Turkey Majority people are muslims, but no one is punished in any way you think, cuz Turkey is a secular country.
Click to expand...

Because in Turkey Islam is explicitly prohibited from the realm of politics, but that too is changing.

Another example, in Ottoman era non-muslims had their own churches,schools, judges,courts ,etc. ,and The ottoman empire was an Islamic empire, its sultans were also khalif.
Click to expand...

They were allowed to have their own institutions but had to maintain dhimmi 3rd class citizen status. If they had a legal conflict with a Muslim they would be completely screwed as the non-Muslim testimony would be ruled inadmissable.

you are talking about what you do have no idea or little information.
Click to expand...

O.K. sport then tell me then in which of the five main sects of Islam (in the Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, orJa'fari) has the Ulama ruled through Ijma that the penalties for apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and/or premarital sex are capital and/or corporal punishment?
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
tell me then in which of the five main sects of Islam (in the Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, orJa'fari) has the Ulama ruled through Ijma that the penalties for apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and/or premarital sex are capital and/or corporal punishment?
Click to expand...

i sure don't know, but i can see you're having an awful lot of trouble getting a straight answer from them who know more than most

keep asking, i'd like to learn the distinctions
 
If they were really interested in any resemblance of harmony the Muslim's would come out publicly and say that due to the anger over this particular location, coupled with the remorse they personally feel for the 9/11 attack done in the name of their religion, they decided to accept a more remote location farther away from the reminder of their shame."

THEN, it would be a Kodak moment.
 
Captain America said:
If they were really interested in any resemblance of harmony the Muslim's would come out publicly and say that due to the anger over this particular location, coupled with the remorse they personally feel for the 9/11 attack done in the name of their religion, they decided to accept a more remote location farther away from the reminder of their shame."

THEN, it would be a Kodak moment.
Click to expand...

With ya' 'til the last line. Why should they be ashamed of what a bunch of radicals do in the "false name of Muslims?"
 
Captain America said:
If they were really interested in any resemblance of harmony the Muslim's would come out publicly and say that due to the anger over this particular location, coupled with the remorse they personally feel for the 9/11 attack done in the name of their religion, they decided to accept a more remote location farther away from the reminder of their shame."

THEN, it would be a Kodak moment.
Click to expand...

It's not all Muslims at stake here. It's just American Muslims who will be getting the grief by other Americans over this Mosque.

What shame? :confused:
 
i think you do not want to understand the meaning of what i said, you just read the words.



Agent Ferris said:
Because in Turkey Islam is explicitly prohibited from the realm of politics, but that too is changing.
Click to expand...

it means you can govern your country in how you want to, and no it will not change, at least Turks are not arabs.



Agent Ferris said:
They were allowed to have their own institutions but had to maintain dhimmi 3rd class citizen status. If they had a legal conflict with a Muslim they would be completely screwed as the non-Muslim testimony would be ruled inadmissable.
Click to expand...

are we talking about the rights ? if so, then The ottoman empire is better than today's America. and if what you said is right, then could you please explan me how non-muslims in the empire lived for 500 years without any 'conflict'. remember it is the sme empire that saved the jews from Spain 600 years ago.



Agent Ferris said:
O.K. sport then tell me then in which of the five main sects of Islam (in the Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, orJa'fari) has the Ulama ruled through Ijma that the penalties for apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and/or premarital sex are capital and/or corporal punishment?
Click to expand...


yes there is an Islamic law ,but as i said Turkey is a secular country. please understand what i mean this time.
 
Captain America said:
The rub here is that, if the Muslims are acting within the law, as it appears they are, there is absolutely NOTHING we can do about unless we turn our backs on our very core American principles. It's a very frustrating place to be watching this transpire all the while having our hands tied.

I am with SgtRock in many ways. I am REALLY starting to hate those bastards too. I feel that the religion of Islam is a blight upon mankind and I would rather see it treated as a disease rather than a religion, but I digress. But that's just my smelly opinion too. (I could probably add a couple more religions to the list as well...)

So here's the predicament. We shut them down, thereby compromising and casting aside our laws, freedom of religion, speech, (and probably a plethora of others) thus giving these germs the final victory over us, OR, we stick to our principles and stand by and watch them memorialize Ground Zero as a Islamic victory.

It's "lose, lose" and it's frustrating..
Click to expand...

Not all Muslims support terrorism,heck there is not even any evidence the Muslims building the mosque support terrorism. So they are not memorializing ground zero as a Islamic victory.

Isn't there a big historical stink in Israel about some Muslim Mosque that was built atop a temple when the Muslim's conquered the area? I seem to remember something like that. Insult to injury. Modus Operandi. Many people, including myself, consider this to be similar in principle.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the people who built that mosque on top of a temple the same ones that conquered that area? If so then it is not the same as the muslims buildings a mosque near ground zero seeing how the same people that conquered that area are the same ones who built that mosque while the ones who flew planes into buildings are not the same ones who are building the mosque.
 
MCS117 said:
And so do most of the opponents to the building of that Mosque. It's not the matter of if they can build it or not. It's the matter of why they are building that mosque in that location. I am for them building mosques, but that location is creating tension. It's like burning the American flag. It's legal, but many Americans(I hope a majority....) does not like people that do that in front of their faces or stomp of the American flag. It's a sign of disrespect to the people there. And this mosque is showing that despite a majority of people do not want it at that location, "we are gonna do it anyway because we can" kind of attitude. How you like it when a guy walks up front of you, spits on an American flag, stomps on it, then lights it up. But then again.... They can do it, but people might not like it.
Click to expand...

I like your post. I agree 100%.
I think it is lack of sensitivity on their part to want to build it right there. It is also just plain stupid for them to build it as someone is going to strike at it. Perhaps that is their plan to build it and after its attacked they can show the world how evil we are. I don't know it just sucks. Kind of like letting Rev Phelps and inbred clan cavort around the country side.
 
MaggieD said:
With ya' 'til the last line. Why should they be ashamed of what a bunch of radicals do in the "false name of Muslims?"
Click to expand...

Who am I to answer that question? That's way above my pay-grade I suppose. I just have an opinion to offer. They should be ashamed of their lack of repugnation, and perhaps even their silent approvals, over that event as well as the very tenents and doctrine of their regressive religion. They should ALL stand up and denounce the Islamic bloody zealots and barbarians around the globe that act in their behalf. How can the "peaceful muslim's" just detach themselves as if it was just another day at the beach? Why are their brutal killer's held in such high regard amongst the so many of the Islamic masses?

Why is it up to US to be the tolerant when that word hardly exists in their vocabularies?

There is too much I just do not understand to form a well-advised answer. Wish I could be more help.
 
Last edited:
soguks said:
i think you do not want to understand the meaning of what i said, you just read the words.

it means you can govern your country in how you want to, and no it will not change, at least Turks are not arabs.
Click to expand...

Did I ever claim that the Turks were not Arabs? The point is the functions of a secular government say absolutely nothing about the tenants of mainstream Islam.


are we talking about the rights ? if so, then The ottoman empire is better than today's America.
Click to expand...

lmfao you can't be serious can you? There was no such thing as equal rights under the Ottoman Empire, women were relegated to 2nd class citizen status; whereas, Christians and Jews were relegated to third class status as dhimmi. And you were basically ****ed if you were a pagan.

and if what you said is right, then could you please explan me how non-muslims in the empire lived for 500 years without any 'conflict'.
Click to expand...

Because they accepted their dhimmitude. That doesn't mean that they had anything that resembled equal rights. Even after the Tanzimat reformations of the Ottoman Empire there was still de jure if not de facto discrimination against and exploitation of non-Muslims.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Even after the Tanzimat reformations of the Ottoman Empire there was still de jure if not de facto discrimination against and exploitation of non-Muslims.
Click to expand...

Better "de jure if not de facto" than de facto and not de jure.
 
Captain America said:
Who am I to answer that question? That's way above my pay-grade I suppose. I just have an opinion to offer. They should be ashamed of their lack of repugnation, and perhaps even their silent approvals, over that event as well as the very tenents and doctrine of their regressive religion. They should ALL stand up and denounce the Islamic bloody zealots and barbarians around the globe that act in their behalf. How can the "peaceful muslim's" just detach themselves as if it was just another day at the beach? Why are their brutal killer's held in such high regard amongst the so many of the Islamic masses?

Why is it up to US to be the tolerant when that word hardly exists in their vocabularies?

There is too much I just do not understand to form a well-advised answer. Wish I could be more help.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let me just that cut short by just stating. I feel no shame over anything anyone does if I had no role.
 
Captain America said:
They should ALL stand up and denounce the Islamic bloody zealots and barbarians around the globe that act in their behalf. How can the "peaceful muslim's" just detach themselves as if it was just another day at the beach? Why are their brutal killer's held in such high regard amongst the so many of the Islamic masses?
Click to expand...

Why should they have to denounce acts that they :
  • Do not approve of
  • Have not spoken in support of
  • Believe no reasonable person would approve of
  • Have no involvement in
  • Have provided no material support for
. . . just to make the rest of us happy?

Why do we not simply assume that they disapprove of it, unless their words or actions explicitly contradict this assumption?

Hell, if that's the route we're going, I believe Captain America has not done enough to properly denounce murder -- not the crime, but individual murders. He should be ashamed of his lack of repugnation, perhaps even his silent approvals, over that crime. He should stand up on the street and publicly denounce each and every murder which occurs all across this great land.
 
Laila said:
I feel no shame over anything anyone does if I had no role.
Click to expand...

i don't know about it's "role," but the church (which aint never gonna be built) certainly has a cause
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
I believe what he's doing is this:

Coming out in support of the 1st Amendment.

If you have a problem with it. Change it. But he's kinda upholding the constitution in this case...

You know that thing you accuse him of destroying...
Click to expand...
Then why did NYC shut down all the porn and strip clubs in time square, you make a good point here and your right and that said let the porn industry blossom right next door to this Mosque I would be curious to see if the 1st amendment applies.
 
Maybe the big problem is, the West has a history of protesting actions done that they don't agree with.

Like Vietnam... Not everyone Supported the War, so those that were against it PROTESTED it.

We consider silence to be silently accepting/agreeing.

That's why when a Muslim makes a comment like "Well I didn't have anything to do with it so why should I be ashamed" we **** our heads to one side and wonder why there isn't a general public outcry against such action.
 
The Prof said:
if they want to improve relations it's a good start
Click to expand...

What a bunch of bull****. You don't improve relations by doing whatever it takes to make someone else happy, you do it through interaction, putting your case out there and giving people a chance to respond to it.

That's what diplomacy is all about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom