• 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 .
Osama Bin Laden does not represent the entire sect of Sunni Muslims.

And Bennie Hays did not represent the entire UKA, but Bennie Hays like OBL was certainly committing acts in accordance with the principles of the organization.


No more than Jessie Jackson represents all Christian blacks.

No but Loise Farrakhan does represent all members of the Nation of Islam and thus he should be held liable when members of that organization commit unlawful acts in accordance with the principles of that organization.


So what? Catholics represent the largest block of Christians but we all don't follow the Pope.

So then you don't believe that the Catholic Church should be held accountable when illegal actions are taken by members of that church acting in accordance with the principle thereof?

Many people got prosecuted for crimes on the orders of the UKA.

I don't believe its central leadership has ever been prosecuted.

The UKA was not ordered to disbanded, they are still around to this day.

But they were held civilly liable and forced to pay restitution which actually destroyed the organization. The UKA is not the UKA of back then and that is only because of the civil suit.

It is completely irrelevant.

It is entirely relevant as the case set the precedent that organizations can be held liable for the actions committed by its members if they are in accordance with the principles of that organization even if they were not ordered by the organizations central leadership.

Here we go again with Nazi's and communists. Play a different tune. This is getting stupid.

I'm just trying to understand why you think that Islam doesn't need to be held to the same standards of other ideologies.


Muslims are not Nazi's or communists who killed people.

I'm just trying to understand why people like you like to throw out the old "most Muslims are peaceful" shtick, because the same can be said about most Communists and Nazi's, most Communists and Nazi's are not violent but that does not make the Communist or Nazi ideologies any less repugnant.

Because it is a stupid argument and does not apply.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to explain exactly why it is stupid and why it doesn't apply.

As I have shown, this is a civil matter and not criminal as I stated. Those who were guilty of crimes were arrested. Or complacent in those crimes. Just like anyone else. Islam is not organized crime. :roll:

So then the UKA can be held responsible for the actions of its members even though they were not acting under orders from the leadership of the UKA but only because they were acting in accordance with the principles of that organization, but the same standards do not apply to Islam? Why exactly?

OBL is not acting on the orders of the leadership of the Suni Sect, however, he is acting in accordance with the principles of Suni Islam.

Not all of Islam adheres to those violent beliefs.

No, not all Muslims act on those principles, however, those principles are certainly in accordance with Islam.

Yes. Again we have a secular government so abortions are legal. And yet the majority of Christians do not go around bombing or killing abortion clinics and doctors.

And most Nazi's don't go around killing Jews and most Communists don't go around co-opting the property of the bourgeois.


Only if you want to commit the same crime you want to condemn the other person of.

So then what should Christians do when confronted with what they are taught is mass murder?
 
Perhaps you can explain the difference. How does subscribing to an ideology which is antithetical to individual liberty whilst in an open society make the ideology any less antithetical to liberty?

What you keep forgetting is that they choose to subscribe to that religion and adhere to its tenets, and they don't force any other adults to behave thusly.

Furthermore, how closely they adhere to the tenets of their faith is also a very individual choice.

While you could make the argument that if they raise their kids in that religion, they're forcing them to do as they do, but they do so only within the margin that any parent is permitted to make choices for their children.

The only thing that I see here is unreasonable is that when someone slaps the "god" label on a bat**** crazy belief structure that you people expect it to get a free pass. If anything asserting that their bat**** crazy belief system is mandated by an imaginary man in the sky makes it even more bat**** crazy.

Whether it's bat**** crazy or not, it's their right to believe in it, it's their right to practice it, and there isn't a thing in the world wrong with them wanting to build a mosque on the site they've chosen -- especially if they're doing it in the name of improving relations between Muslims and the rest of American society.
 
I think that's part of the point --- the mosque is literally steps away from ground zero - the old WTC took up 2 city blocks. But I agree, thankfully, no minarets. I'm wondering if this mosque will piping out "call to prayer" audio 5 times a day?

It would not be allowed to begin with because it would break city ordinances for noise control.

Secondly, minarets do the call to prayer. Mosques are just churches without belltowers.
 
Except Hirohito was directly responsible for pearl harbor, and the Muslims in NY city are regular American citizens who might have lost people in the attack. There is no reason to coddle fools who are too stupid or bigoted to realize that a single act of terrorism does not define an entire religion.

Could not have said it better. Flawless post.
 
That's funny, I hate your view of the future of America.
Great, here's a cookie:

cookie.gif
 
Christains do not act violently in the name of there god.
Some do, just like some Muslims do.

They do not take the bible literaly.
Some do, just like some Muslims do.

Muslims are required to submit totally. They must take the Quran literally because Allah is perfect and therefor the quran 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. 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?
Of course they can disagree with certain parts of the Koran. That's why some Muslims scream for the blood of infidels and others have friends with different spiritual beliefs.
 
That's funny, I hate your view of the future of America.

The funny thing is that the Demographic (race, skin color, ethnicity, religion, language [to a much lesser degree]) of the United States is not set in stone. It would be completely plausible that the United States by 2070 to be a mainly Mexican nation.

I hope I live around to see that haha. This WASP **** is getting old.
 
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.

For the time being muslims peacefully co-exist with non-believers. They are but a small minority. If they ever become a majority that will change. In countries dominated by muslims such as Pakistan infidels are second class citizens and are persecuted. Islam requires that believers not take Christians or Jews as friends. Islam also requires believers to kill infidels. Because of these requirements muslims are inherently intolerant of non believers.

Once again I will say that thay have a right to build thier house of satan or mosque what ever you want to call it. And I have a right to voice my opposition.
 
The funny thing is that the Demographic (race, skin color, ethnicity, religion, language [to a much lesser degree]) of the United States is not set in stone. It would be completely plausible that the United States by 2070 to be a mainly Mexican nation.

I hope I live around to see that haha. This WASP **** is getting old.

I gather from your post that you are a bigot. Have you always hated caucasians.
 
Islam requires that believers not take Christians or Jews as friends. Islam also requires believers to kill infidels.
Please support your claim.

Once again I will say that thay have a right to build thier house of satan or mosque what ever you want to call it. And I have a right to voice my opposition.
House of Satan? That's hilarious. After a long day at work, I needed some unintended amusement. :lamo
 
Except Hirohito was directly responsible for pearl harbor, and the Muslims in NY city are regular American citizens who might have lost people in the attack. There is no reason to coddle fools who are too stupid or bigoted to realize that a single act of terrorism does not define an entire religion.
But why did they pick that specific site? They have plenty of other locations they could build it at. It seems like they're doing it just to send a message.
 
Is the pot calling the kettle black? You just called a mosque a "house of Satan."\
Tu quoque. Dude, your little "wahh you're a worse bigot than me because you said... blahblahbah" routine is 10 times more juvenile than anything he could have ever posted. Phail. :doh

Mind if I steal this? It fits your kindergarten-esque post a lot better. :cool:

DoubleFacePalm.jpg
 
Is the pot calling the kettle black? You just called a mosque a "house of Satan."

DoubleFacePalm.jpg

Because it is a house of satan. And islam is evil. What god would require his believers to wage holy war and kill infidels (non believers)? Don't bother I will answer for you Satan the god of Islam.
 
Because it is a house of satan. And islam is evil. What god would require his believers to wage holy war and kill infidels (non believers)? Don't bother I will answer for you Satan the god of Islam.

The point I was trying to convey is that calling other people a bigot while being one yourself makes you look a bit silly.
 
Because it is a house of satan. And islam is evil. What god would require his believers to wage holy war and kill infidels (non believers)? Don't bother I will answer for you Satan the god of Islam.

P.S. The OT God took it a step further and actually killed non-believers himself. Does that make him evil? ;)
 
Where to even begin. :doh

I've said before that I don't think the average Muslim has any particular intrest in martyrdom or killing infidels. Yet Islam as a whole sure does generate a massive amount of violence, terrorism, and in those nations where Sharia is law: oppression of women and non-Islamics, and astonishingly brutal "justice".
Yeah right from that post I would assume you don't want to get your facts straight. I have known many Muslim woman, and they don't seem oppressed in the least.
Shira LAW Facts from ReligiousTolerance.org

Aha I seen some comment from you that says other thing. Sharia Law is not about oppression of women get your facts straight. The extremist are the ones who are the one who go way too far..

[qoute]Yes, Islam has an "image problem", and it isn't just about 9/11.

Ever heard this saying: "I see a method to your madness, but there's still too much madness in your method."

I sort of see Islam similarly: "I see that not all Muslims are extremists, but there's still too much extremism in Islam."
You just proved my point as a matter of fact that you hate Muslims even before 9/11

Your comment about Conservatives is simply more of your usual hyperpartisanship and irrelevant to the question of whether the location of this mosque is really wise, prudent and considerate.

(It isn't.)

Ahah I am Hyper partisan, because I dare to debate, and disagree with people on this broad, and call out the bigots in the conservative movement, and I never claimed all conservatives were bigots now did I?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom