Just not there

[BT]

If you "understand", then you'd understand how completely disrespectful everyone apparently is in supporting that the only place this Mosque can be built is right there, and no place else.  And most notably, you'd understand how this supposed location is to bring peace, harmony, and a showcase of Islamic tolerance, when in actuality, its providing precisely the polar opposite

I would understand if i agreed that a mosque was as symbolic to terror as the swastika is to the Holocaust.

I don't . And i don't think that enabling enabling people who labor under the delusion that the religion of Islam is synonymous with terror, by either acquiescing or remaining silent to their demands is the right or prudent thing to do. And no one has shown that this particular Iman is a terrorist or that his group has been spreading terror from the same building you object to, in the year that they have already been holding services at.

And i don't see how the Iman and his folks are the ones sowing dissent, intolerance and disharmony in this whole scenario. That seems to be coming from those who are opposing the mosque and apparently the religion.

Seems the opposition is heavy on emotion, but shy on facts that would bolster their case.

[sirs]

If you "understand", then you'd understand how completely disrespectful everyone apparently is in supporting that the only place this Mosque can be built is right there, and no place else.  And most notably, you'd understand how this supposed location is to bring peace, harmony, and a showcase of Islamic tolerance, when in actuality, its providing precisely the polar opposite

I would understand if i agreed that a mosque was as symbolic to terror as the swastika is to the Holocaust.

You're getting close.  To those radical muslims I was referring to, it is indeed a symbol of their terror, and provides a rather nice "circle is complete" justification of their actions.....tho THOSE few radical muslims

NOT to be confused with "normal" Muslims

The opposition isn't arguing "facts".  They're arguing reality

[BT]

You're getting close.  To those radical muslims I was referring to, it is indeed a symbol of their terror, and provides a rather nice "circle is complete" justification of their actions.....tho THOSE few radical muslims

NOT to be confused with "normal" Muslims

Yet it is the NORMAL Muslims the families and you want to punish for the actions of a few, absent facts that link any of these Normal Muslims to the radicals.

[sirs]

It'd be realistically punishing if I said they can't practice their religion, period.  I've never said such however

We have 2 scenarios that realistically will unfold. 
1) The Imam, in his supposed quest for bringing peace and an education of Islamic tolerance to the U.S. people, can acknowledge how this can be seen as insensitive to many, given the events of 911, to want to build an Islamic Mosque in such proximity to a site where thousands were murdered in the name of Islam, and announce a compromise by moving the site a little further away.  Everyone can eat, sleep, and pray, to their heart's content

2) The Imam, can legally and constitutionally build his Mosque right where he wants to, and basically say "go pound sand" to the vast majority of the U.S., pissing them off, and accomplishing precisely the opposite of what his supposed intentions are.  Not to mention the vast amount of resources he'd have to apply towards security, as the radical nutballs line up to see how quickly they can "bring it down"

Since this has never been an issue of they can't build it there, and far more so that they shouldn't build it there, I wonder which he'll choose

[BT]

It'd be realistically punishing if I said they can't practice their religion, period.

It's punishing them for the actions of others as soon as you place qualifiers on their religious rights, in this case by placing limitations on the location of their mosque.

And it doesn't matter one whit whether the families agree with your stance or not. They are as guilty of prejudice  as you are.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That's a bit like Rosa Parks saying to herself:

"I could stay sitting HERE at the front of the bus, and go to jail and get fined and nearly everyone I know will be greatly inconvenienced by having to beg rides for months from people with private cars, maybe people I know maybe jailed or beaten, churches could be bombed, OR I could just go quietly and sit in the back of the bus. "

Rauff could accept that irrational people think that he is some sort of terrorist and forget about his right to build his community center where he has purchased land to do so. Or he could just humbly bow down and accept that the bigots and Islamophobes have won.

[sirs]

Not even in the same ball park, since neither Rosa nor did 19 militant African Americans take down the Empire State Building

One last time, this isn't a 1st, 2nd, or even 14th amendment issue.  This is a Respect issue, a tolerance issue, an inapporpriatness in location issue, given the events of 911.

No one is demanding that Muslims move the Mosque.  The issue is they SHOULD move it, IF the notion of such a Mosque were one embracing and advocating tolerance, sensitivity, and respect.

Ball in the Imam's court

[BT]

This is a Respect issue

Since when are we to RESPECT those who would make the Bill of Rights situational?

[sirs]

Must have missed the part where this isn't a Constitutional issue, so the question is moot

[sirs]

We have 2 scenarios that realistically will unfold. 
1) The Imam, in his supposed quest for bringing peace and an education of Islamic tolerance to the U.S. people, can acknowledge how this can be seen as insensitive to many, given the events of 911, to want to build an Islamic Mosque in such proximity to a site where thousands were murdered in the name of Islam, and announce a compromise by moving the site a little further away.  Everyone can eat, sleep, and pray, to their heart's content

2) The Imam, can legally and constitutionally build his Mosque right where he wants to, and basically say "go pound sand" to the vast majority of the U.S., pissing them off in the process, and accomplishing precisely the opposite of what his supposed intentions are.  Not to mention the vast amount of resources he'd have to apply towards security, as the radical nutballs line up to see how quickly they can "bring it down"

Since this has never been an issue of they can't build it there, and far more so that they shouldn't build it there, I wonder which he'll choose

Ground Zero Imam Says U.S. Worse than al-Qaeda
by  Jason Mattera
08/23/2010

New audio has surfaced of the imam behind the controversial mosque near Ground Zero allegedly telling an audience overseas that the United States has been far more deadly than al-Qaeda. "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims," Feisal Abdul Rauf said at a 2005 lecture sponsored by the University of South Australia. After discussing the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Rauf went on to argue that America is to blame for its testy relationship with Islamic countries.

"What complicates the discussion, intra-Islamically, is the fact that the West has not been cognizant and has not addressed the issues of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world." The audio was uncovered by blogger Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs.

I think I can guess which one he's going to choose

[sirs]

Take a good look at that cartoon.  Pretty darn accurate depection of current events, I'd say

[BT]

Must have missed the part where this isn't a Constitutional issue, so the question is moot

And perhaps you missed the part where this opposition is nothing more than a prejudicial reaction to an action protected by the Bill of Rights.

And you are correct, the first amendment does protect the right of those who choose to espouse prejudicial viewpoints, but it certainly does not make those viewpoints right, and there is no requirement on my part to go along with this mockery of the bill of rights just because some of the opponents lost loved ones on 9/11.


This whole debate can be summed up with two simple questions and two simple answers.

Do you agree with the clause of the first amendment that provides for free religious expression.

I do.

Do you agree with the provision of the 14th amendment that provides for equal protection under the law.

I do.

What you are asking this Iman to do is give in to those vocal ones who wrongly equate all of Islam with terrorism. I don't see how any person of principles could do that.

Just as i don't see the US Government turning its back on Israel just because it would make life a bit easier in the Middle East.

[sirs]

Must have missed the part where this isn't a Constitutional issue, so the question is moot

And perhaps you missed the part where this opposition is nothing more than a prejudicial reaction to an action protected by the Bill of Rights.

You're arguement falls flat, since no one is arguing or advocating a denial of any rights.  We're arguing and advocating a sense of respect, of tolerance, of sensitivity.  Apparently that's just too damn hard to ask for.  Especially, since the Imam now states we're worse than AlQueada.  Yea, real sense of "wanting to bring us all together" mentality there

[BT]

Apparently that's just too damn hard to ask for.  Especially, since the Imam now states we're worse than AlQueada.

Please provide a quote in context of what he said and when he said it.

[sirs]

Just scroll above.  Simply posting what's been reported