• 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!

Imam’s wife: Nixing mosque ‘not option’

j-mac said:
Wedge Issue? How can you wedge an issue that has bi partisan opposition to it? Nah, no wedge here, just arrogant liberals that want everyone else to say the sky is green.


j-mac
Click to expand...

There you go.
Accusing one group of bias, when many people are for the mosque being built.

I think it's plainly obvious that, a lot of conservatives don't like the Constitution, as written.
 
j-mac said:
Wedge Issue? How can you wedge an issue that has bi partisan opposition to it? Nah, no wedge here, just arrogant liberals that want everyone else to say the sky is green.


j-mac
Click to expand...

If it is so bipartisan, why did you feel the need to add partisan comment?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The media doesn't care about Guam's local elections. It cares about Congressional elections.

Some might say that Oklahoma is the belt buckle of the bible belt. But you can substitute any state. It's not important as to which one.
Click to expand...
Frankly you do have a point, this would have been a state issue only, except the main stream and cable media and the president have made it into a national issue.
 
BDBoop said:
Full Story Here

MANAMA, Bahrain - The imam behind a controversial plan to build a mosque near the Manhattan site of the Sept. 11 attacks, refused to discuss the political firestorm yesterday, but his wife in New York said organizers are sticking with their plans.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is on the first leg of a 15-day Mideast tour funded by the U.S. State Department, and said yesterday in Bahrain that he preferred to speak about shared concerns that radical religious views pose to security in both the West and the Muslim world.

“This issue of extremism is something that has been a national security issue - not only for the United States, but also for many countries and nations in the Muslim world,” Rauf said. “This is why this particular trip has a great importance, because all countries in the Muslim world - as well as the Western world - are facing this . . . major security challenge.”
Click to expand...

That's what the fringe right doesn't get. The muslim world doesn't like the extremists.

When you put anything this Imam has said in it's proper context, he sounds pretty moderate to me.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There you go.
Accusing one group of bias, when many people are for the mosque being built.

I think it's plainly obvious that, a lot of conservatives don't like the Constitution, as written.
Click to expand...

No we support the Constitution it's this Imam who calls for a Sharia Compliant U.S. in which secular laws don't contradict the Koran or the Hadiths which would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.
 
Seems like you anti-mosque folks would want this thing getting built. After all, is the goal to make them waste money on erecting silly structures to their particular mythology, just like you christian types? Or is this simply a "my mythology is better than yours" pissing contest?

Normally I adopt a 'live and let live' attitude towards religion, but this stupid issue keeps resurfacing enough that I decided to exercise my freedom of speech and call it like it is - a stupid issue. How about they build whatever they like, you build whatever you like, and we call it a day? Let them build their silly structure at ground zero, and you guys build one there, too. Or both of you don't build there, and we can use the space to throw in a nice restaurant, a library, or some condos - you know, something that we can all use. If you two religions can't play nice with one another and get along, maybe neither of you should be anywhere near ground zero.
 
iangb said:
Page 16 of the relevant report. To paraphrase from the table: To the statement "Homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society"; 61% of Muslims agreed, 64% of evangelical Protestants agreed, 68% of Mormons agreed and 76% of Jehova's Witnesses agreed. (Oh, and 10% of agnostics; the lowest group :))

Clearly churches should only be built if they're not Evangelical or Mormon. Other tables in the report show a similar pattern, for example Muslims see less 'conflict between religion and modern society' than all of the Cristian faiths, and find that their 'values are threatened by Hollywood' less than all groups but historically black Protestant churches (page 14).

Islam is adapting, especially in (comparatively liberal) places like the US, where an alternative to fundamentalism is clearly visible and legally protected. Alienating Muslims by insisting that they're all really secret fundamentalists will only drive them in that direction; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...

Saying that homosexuality should be discouraged =/= calling for the criminalization of homosexuality and it is certainly does not equate to calling for the death, imprisonment, and/or beating of homosexuals for being homosexual. Now which mainstream Christian sect advocates the criminalization of homosexuality? As it stands this is a false analogy but nice try though.

Oh and this Imam is not a "secret fundamentalist" he is an overt Islamist who supports a Sharia compliant U.S. in which secular laws should not contradict the Koran or the Hadiths, his only problem with Sharia is the stringent penal code.
 
Singularity said:
Seems like you anti-mosque folks would want this thing getting built. After all, is the goal to make them waste money on erecting silly structures to their particular mythology, just like you christian types? Or is this simply a "my mythology is better than yours" pissing contest?

Normally I adopt a 'live and let live' attitude towards religion, but this stupid issue keeps resurfacing enough that I decided to exercise my freedom of speech and call it like it is - a stupid issue. How about they build whatever they like, you build whatever you like, and we call it a day? Let them build their silly structure at ground zero, and you guys build one there, too. Or both of you don't build there, and we can use the space to throw in a nice restaurant, a library, or some condos - you know, something that we can all use. If you two religions can't play nice with one another and get along, maybe neither of you should be anywhere near ground zero.
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist and oppose the building of this Mosque but not their right to build it.
 
Agent Ferris said:
No we support the Constitution it's this Imam who calls for a Sharia Compliant U.S. in which secular laws don't contradict the Koran or the Hadiths which would be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.
Click to expand...

That's fine with me but clearly, you guys are trying to at least influence the state to take a position that would restrict them from building their structure near the WTC site.

Something that could violate the Freedom of Religion part, of the first amendment.
 
hazlnut said:
That's what the fringe right doesn't get. The muslim world doesn't like the extremists.

When you put anything this Imam has said in it's proper context, he sounds pretty moderate to me.
Click to expand...

Calling for a Sharia compliant U.S. where secular laws don't contradict the Koran or the Hadiths is moderate? I've read the full article which he wrote, his only problem is with the stringent penal code found under mainstream Sharia not Sharia law itself. That is not moderate.

Saying that the U.S. was an accessory to 9-11 and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after the attacks is moderate? I have read the full transcript to that 60 Minutes interview, the context is one of apologetics. That is not moderate.

Refusing to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization is moderate? I've listened to the full radio podcast the context is repeatedly asking for him to answer whether or not Hamas is a terrorist organization and his refusal to do so. That is not moderate.

Building this Mosque is not a moderate action to begin with. To assert that it is being used to create mutual understanding is laughable, considering that a) it's burning bridges not building them and he still refuses to switch locations, b) only a fool would not have known what the reaction would be, and c) if he actually wanted to build bridges and not incite animosity then he could have opened an inter-faith community center that catered to the religious observances of all members of the community or (and this would have garnered a huge amount of goodwill towards the Muslim-American community) he could have built a memorial to all of the victims of the 9-11 attacks.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's fine with me but clearly, you guys are trying to at least influence the state to take a position that would restrict them from building their structure near the WTC site.

Something that could violate the Freedom of Religion part, of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Who? Who exactly has said that they don't have the right to build the Mosque or called on the state to step in and stop it?
 
Agent Ferris said:
Who? Who exactly has said that they don't have the right to build the Mosque or called on the state to step in and stop it?
Click to expand...

People in general, there wouldn't be this big outcry, before it was approved by the city council.
Many clearly wanted them to be restricted from building their mosque.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Since the city has approved it, we are now seeing people try to not get it built by withholding labor.
Click to expand...

Wow. I shouldn't be shocked or surprised, and yet I am. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Saying that homosexuality should be discouraged =/= calling for the criminalization of homosexuality and it is certainly does not equate to calling for the death, imprisonment, and/or beating of homosexuals for being homosexual. Now which mainstream Christian sect advocates the criminalization of homosexuality? As it stands this is a false analogy but nice try though.
Click to expand...
There's a biiiiiig difference between the policy-setters in a country governed by fundamentalist Islam and the beliefs of every-day Muslims in a comparatively liberal country such as the US. That's what the report showed. Bear in mind that if 61% of Muslims say 'homosexuality should be discouraged by society', that means that 39% disagree. That's a guaranteed disagreement with the 'mainstream sects', from at least 400,000 Muslims in the US (depending on which estimate you use; it could be much higher).

Oh and this Imam is not a "secret fundamentalist" he is an overt Islamist who supports a Sharia compliant U.S. in which secular laws should not contradict the Koran or the Hadiths, his only problem with Sharia is the stringent penal code.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that it will be compulsory to agree with the Imams views in order to worship at the mosque, or to benefit from the community centre?
 
Since the city has approved it, we are now seeing people try to not get it built by withholding labor
Click to expand...
Well if this is the only recourse than so be it, and it will be. It's not about the constitution but more about location, location, location.
 
Last edited:
deltabtry said:
Well if this is the only recourse than so be it, and it will be. It's not about the constitution but more about location, location, location.
Click to expand...

You may be in violation of title 2 of the CRA.

Location my ass, there is a mosque 5 blocks away from the WTC site.
Should that be torn down?
 
Worth a listen.

 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's my personal perception of this event.
Logical fallacy or not.

Since the city has approved it, we are now seeing people try to not get it built by withholding labor.
Click to expand...

That's not a violation of the Constitution or the rights of the organization behind the Mosque in any way, to compel the individual to build something which they did not wish to build would be a violation of their right of self ownership.

The individual is entitled to the right of self ownership and thus entitled to exclusive rights to use and control over said body and any capital, goods, or services produced through the labour of said body. The solution to not getting this Mosque built is not having the state step in and force them to stop but rather is to our freedom of speech simply inform the people to what is going on and hope that the individuals refuse to enter into contractual agreements to build the Mosque. But now something tells me that all of these leftists who have this newfound love of property rights and religious freedom will attempt to use the state to coerce the people into entering into involuntary contractual agreements to build the Mosque possibly by putting pressure on the Unions and in so doing violate the right of self ownership upon which all property rights are based.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
You may be in violation of title 2 of the CRA.

Location my ass, there is a mosque 5 blocks away from the WTC site.
Should that be torn down?
Click to expand...

Gee not such a big proponent of property rights are you now? What a surprise that you would wish to use the state to force the individual into involuntary contractual agreements and thus violate their right to self ownership which is the very basis of all property rights.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Gee not such a big proponent of property rights are you now? What a surprise that you would wish to use the state to force the individual into involuntary contractual agreements and thus violate their right to self ownership which is the very basis of all property rights.
Click to expand...

Don't care about your property rights, as per this thread and all the others.

You have decided to engage in hyperbole and stereotyping, through out this whole discussion, spanning multiple threads.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You may be in violation of title 2 of the CRA.

Location my ass, there is a mosque 5 blocks away from the WTC site.
Should that be torn down?
Click to expand...
Not really worried about CRA violations it doesn't apply to the transportation industry, no supplies no construction. The Mosque five blocks away I don't have a problem with. BTW what are your thoughts about the Orthodox Christian Church being denied a permit to build next to what was the WTC, which BTW was there long before any Mosque. Let that church go up, and perhaps who would see a different outlook from those who oppose the mosque.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom