• 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!

Protesters rally against, for planned Islamic center in New York

Close only counts in hand grenades and nuclear bombs. And I repeat, McVey was a Christian. Are all Chrisitans tainted? The Klan is Christian. Are all Christians tainted? You have no more reason to be insulted by Muslims than you do Christians.

And I am not misrepresenting anything. There is nothing to support the claims of opposition to this Iman either. You have to misread his comments to get their. A Beckish type misreading. And to be insulted, you have to cnsider all muslims equa to Al Qaeda. Much like someone would have to paint all Christians as McVey or the Klan. There is no real around that.


Liberals in one fashion or another have done that ever since that day in OK. That you now somehow want to weasel out of your gross generalization because it suits your argument is silly Joe.

j-mac
 
The most glaring problem with your comment, is that it is a mosque. They will be building a mosque at that location. Once construction is complete, a mosque will exist. Muslims will be entering the building with the specific purpose of praying and worshiping their God, the very definition of a mosque. There will, of course, be other facilities at that location in addition to the mosque, But the talking point that it is not a mosque is just silly.

What part of Freedom of Religion don't you understand?
 
Absolutely. And if the Klan bombed a, lets say, black day care center in the name of Christianity, I'd say it'd be pretty tactless to then turn around and try to build a Church near it that's specifically trying to tie itself to those attacks by trying to "build bridges" that the attack torre down while having a great deal of protests from Blacks who find it disrespectful to the memory of the dead.

Would that be kinda like AL Queda bombing the WTC to protest US middle east policy?
 
It's a community centre where anyone can go... do Muslims go into Christain Churches or Synagogues and start praying? I mean if you REALLY REALLY feel that you have to go pray in a Muslim Prayer Room be my guest Jet Pack.

They will not be offering religious services for any non-Muslim members of the community, they will be offering religious services to only Muslims, non-Muslims will be allowed entry the same as anyother Mosque so that they may receive Dawa.

Mosque - any place of Muslim worship. A jami-masjid or Friday Mosque is a major mosque where weekly prayer services are performed and a sermon or khutbah is given.

It's literally the textbook defintion of a Mosque.

Does it matter? I Mean surely ANY muslim place of worship COULD teach Sharia Law, why not tear them all down?

The Imam is a proponent of Sharia law he is an Islamist, he has every right to support Sharia but we have every right to label him is the Islamist theocrat radical that he is without being labeled bigots for speaking the truth.
 
Except you didn't use my logic, in the least. You made one statement that was HIGHLY questionable in accuracy and even if it was true has NO facts to back it up as being motivation in the least for his attacks. Your second one doesn't disprove or counter what I said, simply reenforces it. Your third is worthless generalization that has nothing to do with what I did.

I SPECIFICALLY was highlighting how specifically these individuals and those they were tied to were SPECIFICALLY motivated, inspired, justified in their minds, and made comfortable with their methods, by their religion.

You just posted a bunch of fraudulent, irrelevant, or pointless statements.

You missed a lot. As those building the Mosuque are not the highjackers, they are novated then Christans would be by the things that either the Klan or McVey were motivated by, though both used the Bible to justify their acts to ne degree or another.

So, when you use the highjackers use of religion, you are doing just what I presented. The people building the Mosque or in no way linked to the highjackers. So the highjackers reasoning cannot be use to justify objecting to the Mosque.
 
What you're not understanding is that the fringe-right, Newt, Sean, Glenn, having been ginning this thing up and painting an false picture of Imam and the Center.

Nothing false about it, it's a Mosque not a community center, and this Imam supports Sharia, he is an Islamist.
 
Liberals in one fashion or another have done that ever since that day in OK. That you now somehow want to weasel out of your gross generalization because it suits your argument is silly Joe.

j-mac

Gross generalization: Liberals in one fashion or another have done that ever since that day in OK.

Now, simply address the point made if you can. ;)
 
What part of Freedom of Religion don't you understand?

I suspect it's the same part of Freedom of Speech that you're having so much trouble with.
 
True or false - The majority of coalition forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are Christian.

True or false - A large number of coalition forces pray to a christian god regularly.

True or false - Some of the soldiers see themselves fighting against an evil religion(Islam).

See, using your method, I just created a holy war in the Middle East.

True or false the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not being conducted in the name of Christianity.
 
Two questions, How many faiths will they allow to have services in their mosque....er, uh....Community center? And, will they be teaching Shria law in that place?


j-mac

Two questions. WTF buisness is it of yours? WTF can you do about it? Besides sitting around bitching endlessly like a liberal.
 
True or false - The majority of coalition forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are Christian.

Christian.

Again, what the ****, are you people not actually READING my posts?

Where once, ONCE did I ask "were they muslims"?

I didn't

The FACT they're muslims means jack **** to my argument. You don't counter my argument by going "See, someoen else is christian therefore its the same standard".

How about actually using something that is comparable to what i said.

True or false - A large number of coalition forces pray to a christian god regularly.

As above.

True or false - Some of the soldiers see themselves fighting against an evil religion(Islam).

As above.

Now, if you wanted ot ask me "some of these soldiers see themselves fighting agaisnt an evil religion based on their beliefs in their religions proclomation as the one true religion and find it their holy duty to fight them" THEN you may have a point.

See, using your method, I just created a holy war in the Middle East.

No, once again like the previous poster, you shown you can't actually answer my questions honestly because you know the conclusion for it so you have to parade forward an idiotic post like this that in no way does what my post does and then act and masquarade as if its similar in hopes that people buy the bull****.

Here Redress, I'll give you the opening.

Show me SPECIFICALLY where the actions in the middle east by our troops are:

1. Justified based largely on religious doctrine or reasons
2. Performed based largely on religious doctrine or reasons
3. Done in such an extreme way due largely due to their belief in a religious doctrine or reasons.

True or false - A large number of Muslims, including many/most prominent Muslims, condemned the 9/11 attack.

Wonderful. That doesn't change the fact that Islam is directly and unquestionably tied to that attack.

True or false - the guy proposing the mosque/community center is not in any way implicated in 9/11.

Wonderful. That doesn't change the fact that Islam is directly and unquestionably tied to that attack.

True or false - Most Muslims are not terrorist.

Wonderful that doesn't change the fact that Islam is directly and unquestionably tied to that attack.

And because Islam is directly and unquestionably tied to that attack in an extremely negative way, for many people the notion of a building going up that close to Ground Zero whose entire purpose is to use and manipulate that location to try promote and push their religion and to chastise people for not being "tolerent" while being completely intolerant and completely unempathetic to peoples emotions that are visiting said place and the, reasonable or not, emotions that certain combinations stir, is simply offensive.

The problem here is that while it is possible to oppose the mosque without being bigoted(which is a stupid claim that those opposed all are), it is still opposing something for nothing greater than a kneejerk emotional reaction aimed at the wrong target.

I disagree. I think its entirely reasonable and understandable to give due respect to emotions in this.
I think doubly so when the notion of WHY the mosque is where it is is HIGHLY dubious to me based on the circumstances and I'm talking nothing about his "extremist" nature or the funding.
 
Two questions. WTF buisness is it of yours? WTF can you do about it? Besides sitting around bitching endlessly like a liberal.

Oh, god; you gave me my first major laugh of the day. Thank you. :D
 
It is not a talking point. It is not a mosque. It IS an Islamic Cultural Center in question. What’s being proposed is a community center with meeting rooms, a swimming pool, a day care center and auditorium as well as space for religious services

The project was unanimously approved by the New York City board. WHY would they do that?? Seriously, stop and think. WHY would they unanimously approve it if it is what you all are believing it to be?

how many other faiths services will be held there?

Mosque was the term used by Imam Rauf until it became clear to him, and liberals that was a caustic term. Now all of the sudden we are supposed to forget that the thing is a Mosque. Great.


j-mac
 
Would that be kinda like AL Queda bombing the WTC to protest US middle east policy?

Yes, as I said if the Klan did it based specifically on justifications and reasonings regarding their faith, much like Al queda's protest to US Middle East Policy is based off the notion that they're desecrating the "Land of Islam" and that Allah commands them to fight against such people.
 
Two questions. WTF buisness is it of yours? WTF can you do about it? Besides sitting around bitching endlessly like a liberal.

So I assume this egregious personal attack by you means you have nothing to contribute to the discussion? Yeah, didn't think so....buh bye now.


j-mac
 
It is not a talking point. It is not a mosque. It IS an Islamic Cultural Center in question. What’s being proposed is a community center with meeting rooms, a swimming pool, a day care center and auditorium as well as space for religious services

Why are you so hesitant to call a space for islamic religious services a mosque? It's a building that will contain a mosque and all these other things you keep wanting to bring up.
 
Oh, god; you gave me my first major laugh of the day. Thank you. :D

Ah so if someone doesn't agree with you, you think it funny to attack them personally eh....Nice.


j-mac
 
You missed a lot. As those building the Mosuque are not the highjackers,

Actually apparently you missed a lot. Quote me once where I said the people building the Mosque are the highjackers.

they are novated then Christans would be by the things that either the Klan or McVey were motivated by

****ing hell. did you even read my post or are you just spewing this ignorant **** out on the fly. McVeigh is a ridiculous comparison, and I just said the a christian church would be tactless and wrong if they the Klan did something actually similar to this too.

So, when you use the highjackers use of religion, you are doing just what I presented.

Just because you say its what you presented doesn't make it so. You actually have to demonstrate it, which you've not. You'd know that, if you actually READ my post.
 
What part of Freedom of Religion don't you understand?

The part where its stated that Muslims practicing their constitutionally protected rights means that others have to forgoe theirs.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin, the problem is not that every one is not reading what you posted, or not comprehending it. The problem is you are suing a tenuous chain of logic to support your position.
 
Actually apparently you missed a lot. Quote me once where I said the people building the Mosque are the highjackers.



****ing hell. did you even read my post or are you just spewing this ignorant **** out on the fly. McVeigh is a ridiculous comparison, and I just said the a christian church would be tactless and wrong if they the Klan did something actually similar to this too.



Just because you say its what you presented doesn't make it so. You actually have to demonstrate it, which you've not. You'd know that, if you actually READ my post.

Did you ask the questions in a void, with no link to those builing the mosque? If you did, they are pointless. They only work as a discussion point if you're linking the acts by the highjackers with Msulims and linking that to the peole building the mosque, as reason to be insulted. That's only way it works logically. otherwise, there is no point to your comments.
 
I wouldn't say it does. There is still a real ingorance to the protesting. The building isn't on ground zero,

Yes it is, it was actually struck by the landing gear of one of the planes.

Muslims didn't perpetrate 9/11 (al Qaeda did),

The AQ operatives weren't Muslims? The AQ operatives do what they did in the name of Islam?

and no evidence presented has shown any rational reason for the protesting.

It's been demonstrated that this man is an Islamist who offered up apologetics for the 9-11 attacks.
 
So I assume this egregious personal attack by you means you have nothing to contribute to the discussion? Yeah, didn't think so....buh bye now.


j-mac

Not a personal attack. I'm asking, WTF business is it of yours and WTF can you legally and justly do about it? Other than crying about a mosque in your oatmeal. Can you answer the question or can we just assume that you have nothing but feigned outrage at some mosque? Yeah, thought so.
 
Ah so if someone doesn't agree with you, you think it funny to attack them personally eh....Nice.


j-mac

You have a very "french" definition of personal attack buddy. I asked ya some questions; questions which are pertinent to the discussion. Since when do we require any religious building to host other religions? Since when do we limit what they can talk about? That's it. Do you actually have answers for this or is all we're going to get is "Oh noes...a mosque...Sharia law.....sky...falling..."
 
Sorry, Zyph, you know it, and I know it. The truth, the facts and the law are on my side.

Yes Hazl, they are on your side for PART of what you're saying and implying.

They're on the side of the protesters as well for PART of what they're saying and implying.

Guess what?

The Law is COMPLETELY 100% on my side of things for what I am saying. Which is that they should legally be allowed to build there, people should legally be allowed to protest and condemn it, and that PERSONALLY I think it shouldn't be built there.

Newt and the far-righties have stepped in it this time, crapping on the Constitution they pretend to hold so dear.

Wonderful, and I LOVE how you bitch about "bigoted" nature of people comdening a group for the action of a "minority of extremists" and then you proceed to degrade everyone that thinks the opposite of you on this issue based on the statements of one person, Newt Gingrich, and the opinion of an extreme minority in "the far righties".

Your hypocrisy on this issue is pathetic.

I define realty with truth and FACTS.

I suggest you read up on them.

Yes yes, I have. Please point me to what "facts" I've stated incorrect.

Please read more carefully.

I clearly said, IMO, the ignorant rants of those opposing the building of the Cultural Center are watered down versions of those who may advocate vandalizing the building or worse.

Exaclty, implying that we should treat them the same way as the non-water downed versions.

Guess what, Saying "It shouldn't be built there" is not a watered down version of "VANADLIZE THE PLACE". Those are LEAGUES apart.

Ignorance breeds fear. Fear breeds hate. Hate breeds violence.

Thank you yoda. Got any other retarded proverbs?

Again, please try to make a better effort at reading and comprehending my posts before opening your mouth to reply.

I am comprehending your posts. Its what's making me roll my eyes so much.

I'm condemning ignorance and misinformation by the fringe-right, Newt, Sean, Glenn, and Sarah that led to the shameful protests.

No you're not, you're making bigoted statements condemning an extremely large amount of Americans based on the comments of a few people or a small group of extremists, and then pathetically and hypocritical go about bitching about people who do the exact thing YOU'RE doing and equating them to watered down criminals.

Maybe rather then telling others to check their reading comprehension you should actually read what you right, you may realize the irony of your posts.

Unconditional acceptance of the law -- convenient or not. That's a conservative value. That's an American value. Liberals (think about the word) want to expand the law to new meanings based on emotions.

Hey, Haz, where am I not accepting the law.

Point me to it.

QUOTE IT FOR ME.

Guess what, here's a guy that's AGAINST THIS BUILDING! You know, that group you're repeatedly ignorantly and bigotedly trying to associate with the words of an extreme minority?

I'm, no where, trying to talk about "expanding the law".

Freedom of religion. Their God is as valid as your God.

Absolutely, now could you leave your strawman that you're pummeling for a while and actually address what I'M actually saying?

Sorry, like it or not, I'm more 'conservative' on this issue than you are.[/b]

hahahahhahahahahahhahahahaha

Thank you for revealing your true stance as that of a bigoted xenophobe.

Ah, direct personal attack on me as a person. Wonderful, noted.

"in the Name of that religion" -- it's that level of ignorance and backward fear-think, that I condemn.

Yes, how dare I point out an actual fact. Wait, I thought you liked facts? Now you dislike facts? I'm so confused, could we get a list of when Hazlnut approves of facts and when he doesn't?

I feel sorry for you if you can't see how screwed up that thinking is.

I laugh at the notion of you feeling sorry for me.

Your false analogies are just killing your own argument.

Translation: I can't counter your argument.

No, Newt, Sarah, Sean, and Glenn are the ones that are ginning up the stupidity going into midterms.

Yep, and you're the one hypocritically bigotly condemning an entire section of people based on the actions of a few in the minority. At least, that's how you term it, "bigoted".

I know you hate to admit it, but I'm more conservative on this issue than you are.

Hold on, I need to catch my breath for this one again.


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

I side with the Constitution and the law... Not LIBERAL EMOTION.

Wonderful, I side with the Constitution and the law too. Only unlike you, I'm CLEAR in saying that there should be no LAW denying them the ability to build this building. Where as YOU are the one clearly implying that the LAW should be used to silenec people protesting it as "watered down" criminals.

Look at that, Zyph is now a Liberal.

Yes, you can call me the Pope as well. Lets see how much that makes it a reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom