• 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!

Mosque near WTC moves forward

Regarding the "Cordoba House" mosque being built 2 blocks from ground zero in NYC...


  • Total voters
    58
  • Poll closed .
Would you care to explain how the individuals involved with the proposed mosque are the "enimies" of freedom?

They are muslim. There is no freedom under Islam only total submission to Allah. Therefor they are enimies of freedom. And when if ever there population increases in the United States to levels of majority there will be no freedom in the USA.
 
Last edited:
And so I hit the nail firmly on the head. Whats your problem with me calling it like I see it and being correct?

I don't see how judging someone on their belief system is akin to bigotry, ones belief system is something they control unlike their skin color, ethnicity, nationality etc. By your reasoning one is a bigot for disliking Nazi's, Communists, members of the KKK etc.

You read the rest of the posts with myself and others already pointing it out correct?

You resorted to a ad-hominem logical fallacy by calling me a bigot, that hardly proves my point invalid.
 
Not all Muslims are freedom haters. My babysitter as a child was an Iranian Muslim woman and she lived freely. She had a daughter that lived near her and both of them were US citizens that support freedom and our country.

In regards to the mosque though, they are completely in their rights to build the mosque where they have chosen to build it. However, their decision to do so is very arrogant and disrespectful given the location. Honestly I expect and fear that when the mosque is built that we are going to see a lot of vandalism of the building. The government has no right to silence the practice of religion or dictate where religious buildings can be, but ethically speaking their decision to build a mosque there was foolish and distasteful.
 
From the historical perspective since the advent of islam during the 7th century, the conquest of islam (from medina to mecca and then swiping across to all of ME, Egypt, Spain, Persia and India like a wild fire) was marked by building of mosques over the sites of destructions of other religious temples or house of worship or hijacking them for conversion into mosques following the usual islamic great slaughters, rapes and plunders on other people’s lands.

This practice, which they held as a sense of victorious prestige over those subdued much like a dog would pee over its territorial claim, was unique only to animalistic islamic cult. Therefore, the building of "Cordoba House" mosque being built 2 blocks from ground zero in NYC is simply an islamic stealth way of proclaiming victory over their infidels, of whom 3000 such souls were killed. For that they were proud for doing a good job for their allah who demanded for such in the koran. Whatever else they said out of their mouth is just taqiyya, which most muslims are good at it.

Comparing islam and ground zero in 911 with Christianity and abortion clinics is a fallacy of false comparison. Those 3000 souls killed by the islamic terrorism weren’t in the twin towers to slaughter innocent unborn babies. Abortionists in abortion clinics are in there to slaughter innocent unborn human lives. Killing someone who is killing or about to kill another innocent human being is not the same as killing people who simply go to work that do not involve the shedding of innocent bloods.
 
They certainly weren't tolerant either.

They were more tolerant on many social issues that modern fundamentalists. For example, homosexuality wasn't persecuted and woman were treated better. Most importantly, the Ottomans allowed for relatively large amounts of religious freedom.
 
There is a difference. Christainity has gone through a reformation Islam has not.

So what? It did not change the Bible.

Christains do not act violently in the name of there god.

That is an out and out lie.

They do not take the bible literaly.

Another lie.

Many Christians would tell you that is Heresy and blasphemy.

Muslims are required to submit totally.

As are Christians.

"Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

They must take the Quran literally because Allah is perfect and therefor allah is perfect. And if Allah demands that his followers kill infidels in holy war then as submitting believers, muslims must serve Allah by wageing jihad against infidels.

Again many Christians would school you on the perfection of the Bible and how it is to be taken literally. If this was not the case, we would not have a museum that claims humans existed with dinosaurs. And it is not just a few Christians either.

Its that simple. Ask a muslim if he or she can disregard the parts of the Quran they disagree with and still be considered a muslim?

Ask a born again Christian the same question.
 
I don't see how judging someone on their belief system is akin to bigotry, ones belief system is something they control unlike their skin color, ethnicity, nationality etc. By your reasoning one is a bigot for disliking Nazi's, Communists, members of the KKK etc.

Well lets define the term "bigotry"...

"1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Yep that covers it.

You resorted to a ad-hominem logical fallacy by calling me a bigot, that hardly proves my point invalid.

Not according to the dictionary.
 
Under Islam there is no freedom of religion, there is no freedom of speech, etc in fact the definition of the word Islam is submission IE Muslims view being a slave to god as a virtue.

Even if you're right, in places like America, people can freely choose to be Muslim or not, and Muslims co-exist peacefully with non-believers.

Try again.
 
Last edited:
They are muslim. There is no freedom under Islam only total submission to Allah. Therefor they are enimies of freedom. And when if ever there population increases in the United States to levels of majority there will be no freedom in the USA.

If anybody is deprived of freedom under Islam in America, it's self-deprivation, and thus still freedom.

Try again.
 
You. Don't. Get. It. Goshin.

9/11 was committed by bad people who happened to be extremist Muslim.

Many Muslims are not extremist, and did not condone the horrible act that happened on that bleak day in September.

Focus on the "bad" part, and not the "Muslim" part.


It is my opinion that you are the one who doesn't get it.

If 9/11 had been committed by a group of people who were, oh I dunno pick some cause out of a hat, let's say PETA in retaliation for commercial meat farming just to be silly... and it just so happened that they were all Muslim...that would be different.

9/11 was not just committed by Muslims, it was committed in the name of Islamic jihad. The next day we saw video of (some) Muslims around the world dancing and celebrating this act. Condemnation of 9/11 by Islamic religious figures was slow and scant, and remains scant.

Does this mean that Joe Avg Muslim was happy about 9/11 and supported it? Possibly not, but Joe Muslim did not cry out against it in large numbers. Possibly because Joe Muslim was afraid of what the Imams and extremists would do to him if he did.... which ought to tell you something right there.

As I've said, I don't blame all Muslims for 9/11. However, I have been and remain disappointed that condemnation of such terrorism by Islamic religious authorities is and has remained relatively scarce. A few brave Imams have spoken out against terrorism, and I applaud them... but the majority have either expressed support or remained silent.

I have no plans to march in protest against the WTC-site mosque, or to write NYC and beg them to withdraw their permit; I don't see it as that huge of a thing. I just think it isn't such a hot idea.

If they put a big stone slab memorial out front, on which is etched the words "WE the people of this Islamic Mosque, hereby condemn the atrocity that was committed on 9/11 and express our sympathy for the victims and their families, and our solidarity as Americans against terrorism," and a couple dozen Imams associated with the mosque have their names engraved beneath, committing themselves to that statement, then I might feel differently.
 
The problem for the critics is that if two blocks is insufficiently far enough for a mosque to be from the WTC, then in their opinion, what is the appropriate distance? Three blocks? Four? Not on Manhattan? Not in NYC? Not in the state? Not in the country? Not on this continent? Not on this planet? … What?

The reality is that Muslims were working in the WTC when the planes hit; they were among the dead. Furthermore, violent Muslim fundamentalists have killed more Muslims than non-Muslims. The Pakistani people today are fighting against a wave of terror crimes being committed against them by violent fundamentalists.

In the face of the many outrages perpetrated by violent Muslim fundamentalists against all people in the world, building a better understanding between Islam and the West is an exceedingly timely and relevant thing to do. We are allies. That is the purpose of this mosque and I can't imagine how any informed person could possibly be opposed to it.
 
So what? It did not change the Bible.



That is an out and out lie.



Another lie.

Many Christians would tell you that is Heresy and blasphemy.



As are Christians.

"Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."



Again many Christians would school you on the perfection of the Bible and how it is to be taken literally. If this was not the case, we would not have a museum that claims humans existed with dinosaurs. And it is not just a few Christians either.



Ask a born again Christian the same question.

How many Christian suicide bombings, car bombings, school burnings, and plots to commit mass murder in the name of god have you heard of lately? Or even in the past 20 years?

How many Christains shout "god is great" before commiting murder of innocents?

How many Christains have said "god is great" before they filmed themselfs cutting of the head of an innocent contractor?

Go ahead, make your list, and I will post one hundred stories of islamic terrorist who murdered innocents in the name of Allah. NAd it will be easy for me to find them because they happen so often.

You sir are an appoligist for the evil that is Islam.
 
I think it's been almost 9 freaking years, and if they aren't over their grief enough to be able to tolerate the sight of a mosque, they've got problems that "a little consideration" isn't going to be able to fix.
.

Slavery in the USA ended about 150 years ago; some people are still bent out of shape over it. Witness the furor over the Confederate flag.
 
Slavery in the USA ended about 150 years ago; some people are still bent out of shape over it. Witness the furor over the Confederate flag.

You say that if one form idiocy justifies another.

That said, are you saying that mosques are the symbol of Islamic militants? They're not. They're the symbol of Islam.

Get it straight.
 
How many Christian suicide bombings, car bombings, school burnings, and plots to commit mass murder in the name of god have you heard of lately? Or even in the past 20 years?

You mean like the guy who walked into church and shot the abortion doctor?

"A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994." - BBC News | Africa | Priests get death sentence for Rwandan genocide

How many children were raped by Catholic priests?

Christians are far from blameless for senseless acts of violence by the minority.

The difference is we don't hold the whole of Christianity responsible for the acts of Zealots.

How many Christains shout "god is great" before commiting murder of innocents?

How many Christains have said "god is great" before they filmed themselfs cutting of the head of an innocent contractor?

None that I know of in the last 20 years. That means nothing though considering the amount of violence the minority has caused in general.

Go ahead, make your list, and I will post one hundred stories of islamic terrorist who murdered innocents in the name of Allah. NAd it will be easy for me to find them because they happen so often.

You sir are an appoligist for the evil that is Islam.

Oh now I am an Islamic apologist. :lol:

Yea we are done here.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by SgtRock
Christains do not act violently in the name of there god.

That is an out and out lie.
.


It's a question of scale. In modern times it is exceedingly rare for Christians to commit violence in the name of Christianity.

Tim McVeigh acted in retaliation for the Waco massacre; the Branch Davidians were not really a Christian organization, imo. At best they were a fringe group that differed dramatically from mainstream Christianity.

Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber, apparently isn't a Christian. I've read some of his correspondence and it is pretty clear that he isn't.

The more recent murder of the abortion doctor, yes that guy apparently was a Christian and believed he was acting in God's name. Condemnation of his action by many Christian leaders was swift and firm.

We remember these incidents and those who committed them...because of their rarity. Can anyone here name the last 10 Islamic suicide bombers off the top of their head?

I did some research on this a few months ago. Over the past three decades, acts of terrorism committed in the name of Christianity were were very small, IIRC I think there were seven in which people died. Acts of terrorism in the name of Islam were in the thousands.

It's like comparing firecrackers and nuclear bombs. In the one case, we're talking about a literal handful of fringe extremists that are roundly condemned by their religious leaders. On the other side, we're talking about thousands of terrorists who appear to garner the sympathy if not support of millions of their co-religionists.

It simply isn't comparable.
 
You say that if one form idiocy justifies another.

That said, are you saying that mosques are the symbol of Islamic militants? They're not. They're the symbol of Islam.

Get it straight.


Yes, and in my opinion, building a symbol of Islam within sight of Ground Zero, where 3000 Americans died at the hands of terrorists who were acting in the name of Islam, is in poor taste, unwise, and imprudent.
 
From the historical perspective since the advent of islam during the 7th century, the conquest of islam (from medina to mecca and then swiping across to all of ME, Egypt, Spain, Persia and India like a wild fire) was marked by building of mosques over the sites of destructions of other religious temples or house of worship or hijacking them for conversion into mosques following the usual islamic great slaughters, rapes and plunders on other people’s lands.

This practice, which they held as a sense of victorious prestige over those subdued much like a dog would pee over its territorial claim, was unique only to animalistic islamic cult. Therefore, the building of "Cordoba House" mosque being built 2 blocks from ground zero in NYC is simply an islamic stealth way of proclaiming victory over their infidels, of whom 3000 such souls were killed. For that they were proud for doing a good job for their allah who demanded for such in the koran. Whatever else they said out of their mouth is just taqiyya, which most muslims are good at it.

Comparing islam and ground zero in 911 with Christianity and abortion clinics is a fallacy of false comparison. Those 3000 souls killed by the islamic terrorism weren’t in the twin towers to slaughter innocent unborn babies. Abortionists in abortion clinics are in there to slaughter innocent unborn human lives. Killing someone who is killing or about to kill another innocent human being is not the same as killing people who simply go to work that do not involve the shedding of innocent bloods.

It depends what type of abortion they were practicing. If the fetus is capable of life outside the womb then it should not be killed but rather excised from the whom surgically and all medical care granted to it in order to insure its survival. The rationale for this using the non-aggression principle is that the woman may not have the right to aggress against the fetus and though the fetus may have the right to live, as owner of her own body the woman reserves the right to evict trespassers.
 
Yes, and in my opinion, building a symbol of Islam within sight of Ground Zero, where 3000 Americans died at the hands of terrorists who were acting in the name of Islam, is in poor taste, unwise, and imprudent.

I think it is in poor taste, unwise, and imprudent to brand Islam with the violence committed by a fairly small minority of its adherents.
 
It's a question of scale. In modern times it is exceedingly rare for Christians to commit violence in the name of Christianity.

Tim McVeigh acted in retaliation for the Waco massacre; the Branch Davidians were not really a Christian organization, imo. At best they were a fringe group that differed dramatically from mainstream Christianity.

Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber, apparently isn't a Christian. I've read some of his correspondence and it is pretty clear that he isn't.

The more recent murder of the abortion doctor, yes that guy apparently was a Christian and believed he was acting in God's name. Condemnation of his action by many Christian leaders was swift and firm.

We remember these incidents and those who committed them...because of their rarity. Can anyone here name the last 10 Islamic suicide bombers off the top of their head?

I did some research on this a few months ago. Over the past three decades, acts of terrorism committed in the name of Christianity were were very small, IIRC I think there were seven in which people died. Acts of terrorism in the name of Islam were in the thousands.

It's like comparing firecrackers and nuclear bombs. In the one case, we're talking about a literal handful of fringe extremists that are roundly condemned by their religious leaders. On the other side, we're talking about thousands of terrorists who appear to garner the sympathy if not support of millions of their co-religionists.

It simply isn't comparable.

That's not what he said. He said "Christains do not act violently in the name of there god."

This as you and I have shown is a lie.

Statism does not cut it. The Constitution is clear on this.
 
They were more tolerant on many social issues that modern fundamentalists. For example, homosexuality wasn't persecuted and woman were treated better.

I would like to see some actual evidence for that.

Most importantly, the Ottomans allowed for relatively large amounts of religious freedom.

Not for polytheists and Christians and Jews were still 3rd class citizens.
 
Well lets define the term "bigotry"...

"1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Yep that covers it.

No that doesn't actually cover it, by your definition someone who is completely stubborn and intolerant of Nazism is likewise a bigot.

Not according to the dictionary.

Yes I suppose if intolerance of intolerant ideologies equates to bigotry.
 
Even if you're right, in places like America, people can freely choose to be Muslim or not, and Muslims co-exist peacefully with non-believers.

So do Nazi's and Communists, how does that make Nazism or Communism any less antithetical to individual liberty?
 
Back
Top Bottom