http://rationalists.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/islamic-cultural-centr...

This is the final straw. How many died at Ground Zero. I cannot imagine how I would feel knowing that people will be praying at the very site to a god who through their belief of him had a part in this evil event,..if I had lost a loved one.
 Is this the beginning of the end.
 What do you think?

Views: 35

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So 2 blocks away isn't good enough? Then how far away is good enough? What is your arbitrary minimum distance away?

What you don't seem to understand is that this center is not [b]ON[/b] Ground Zero, but two blocks away.

I'm offended whenever a new church is built. Does that mean they can't build a church near where I live? Fuck no, they can build it wherever the hell they want.

Several 9/11 families were interviewed and were IN SUPPORT of this community center.

The only people who aren't are the right-wing conservatives using it as fuel for a fire, thanks to misinformation and deep-seated racism and bigotry, whether you recognize that or not.

That's what I object to: Republicans using this as a platform to get votes. It's disgusting and harmful.

Oh, and Muslims pray to the same exact Abrahamic God as the Jews and Christians do.
You haven't done a good job at defending your view at all. lolz

I have told you that technically, it doesn't matter, however out of basic respect for the HUMAN RIGHT to GRIEVE, I do not think it appropriate to build something that has OBVIOUSLY INCITED MUCH ANIMOSITY TOWARDS THE MUSLIM POPULATION. And you are correct, several 9/11 families are supporting this community center. however, SEVERAL OTHER 9/11 families are OPPOSED TO IT, which explains the current debacle.

And NO, contrary to your beliefs, I do not align myself with the "Evil, Conservative Right-Wing". Nor do I allow myself to lean too closely to Liberal beliefs. I'm a Moderate. Honestly, I can't believe you brought up party platforms and ideology when the point of this conversation is not about politics. This conversation is about standing up for oneself, and not allowing others to walk all over you. Although this mosque 2 blocks from ground zero has no connection to Al Qaeda, or any other extremist group, IT WOULD STILL BE SEEN AS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE UNITED STATES. SORRY. but it's true. As I stated in the previous post, I don't quite remember any Jewish Centers opening up after the Gaza War on sites that many Muslims had been killed. The Jewish Center would have been TORN TO SHREDS by all the angst and enmity that would be created. This mosque on ground zero, as I stated in the previous post, has NOTHING to do with Racism, NOTHING to do with Bigotry, and NOTHING to do with the bifurcation of political parties in America.

Additionally, I have no idea why you bothered to bring up the fact that "Oh, and Muslims pray to the same exact Abrahamic God as the Jews and Christians do". WHATS YOUR POINT? are you implying that I have absolutely no knowledge of what these 3 major religions' beliefs consist of? Or are you simply making an obvious posit that should explain why my side of the argument is wrong? Please, I enjoy this little chat we are having, and am trying very hard to see things from your point of view, but do not patronize me.

And lastly, yes, I agree on the premise that churches are extremely offensive, and that they can be built ANYWHERE they want. however, I don't think that our founding fathers thought about how weak our country has become in terms of allowing others to walk all over us.

This mosque, in conclusion, is not anything more than a statement of disrespect, arrogance, and using dialogical prestidigitation to turn selfish behavior (a bigger mosque is needed) into "benevolence" (reaching out to the community") under the unintelligible abstraction of God. This is no masquerade party, and we are atheists, who supposedly pride ourselves of our ability to see through the fallacious and self-serving behavior of theists. so, please, open your eyes.
Seeing as how you have failed to recognize that this is not a mosque, but a cultural center with a huge majority of non-Muslim amenities and features, I'm not going to continue this discussion. I'm tired of trying to explain the truth of this matter to you.

Perception is not an argument. You can perceive insult and arrogance and disrespect all you want, but that is not a valid argument against this building.
Well I have yet to see one single valid argument from your side except for the fact that this building is protected under the 1st amendment. And I also loathe how you like to act as if I do not understand the concept of what a "cultural center" actually is. I hate to break it to you, buddy, but people are no where close to as honest and innocent as you think. I think that the numerous Jewish centers across the United States and in other countries are cultural centers, however, if you had ever taken a college class in introductory psychology, you would realize that people will tend to feel a certain way, just by association patterns of certain words. I'm sorry that you don't understand that building this Muslim "cultural center" is almost as as bad as erecting a statue of Hitler at Auschwitz.

And yes. AGAIN, I hate to be the one to break this to you, BUT PERCEPTION IS AN EXTREMELY VALID ARGUMENT. Case and point: most of the religious wars caused in the history of the world have been sparked by EXACTLY THAT PERCEPTION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Different Ethnocultural groups are subject to perceive certain social actions differently. i.e. (the christian inquisition of latin america? Catholic nations viewed this as a wonderful gift, to educate others on "God's" virtues; however, the Native Americans of the continent fought honorable to expel the "Great Evil" known as Catholicism).

I'm sorry that you feel the need to end this conversation. I see your point and I understand what you are telling me, but, I must respectfully disagree.
The problem is, erecting a statue of Hitler at Auschwitz is not protected under the U.S. Constitution. Do you propose we alter the First Amendment to give freedom of religion, except when it offends some people some of the time? It's ridiculous.

It all boils down to this: feelings of 9/11 families vs. feelings of Muslim-Americans who want a place to pray and honor the friends and family THEY TOO lost in 9/11. Whose feelings are more important? Who are we to answer that question?
@Matt
"I'm sorry that you don't understand that building this Muslim 'cultural center' is almost as as bad as erecting a statue of Hitler at Auschwitz."

I'm sorry that you don't understand that using hyperbolic statements really doesn't help your argument. It seems to me that you are just basing your opinion on emotion rather than facts.
Well put Matt. But whatever you say will not be taken seriously for when you believe in a God, any God, although the CHristain God does not seem to have a name as do all the hundred of others, your mind will never be changed. .
Logical thinking is thrown aside and I am afraid there is nothing we can do to change this.
People listened to Hitler and they tourtured and killed millions.
Why is it that some say they are telling the truth and will not discuss the matter with logic and reason,
When valid arguments cannot be found then discussion is halted then watch out.
Adriana,

I know that you said you are off of this discussion but I wanted to commend your point number 4. I cannot stand the argument that any freedoms which are supposed to be protected under the US Constitution should be limited when someone finds the exercise thereof "offensive". The entire point of those freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment is to protect certain abilities of individuals that the masses and/or leaders of government might like to prohibit for one reason or another. Claiming that something is offensive is completely trivial when it comes to limiting anyone's freedom to do something that is protected by the First Amendment. It really baffles me when people believe that they have a right not to be offended and that somehow this "right" trumps all other rights of everyone else.
Elaine, it appears to me as though you and Matt have thrown logical thinking aside and opted to base your opinions on emotions rather than facts.
Also, Hitler shouldn't be mentioned in this discussion at all. But since you brought Hitler up, I'm going to use him as an example to destroy your argument. You believe that because a small group of Muslim terrorists blew up the WTC we should discriminate against all Muslims by refusing them the right to build a cultural center (w/ a prayer room). By your logic, Jewish people and anyone else affected by Hitler and the Nazis should discriminate against all Germans because Hitler and the Nazis were also German. I think you should rethink your position on this.
Oi Vey... Thanks Elaine. I'm glad somebody here can at least not look at things from such a liberal frame of reference. The thing that is so funny about Atheists is this.... we all credit ourselves with looking at issues critically and using an analytical mindset. However, the problem with using strictly logic in any sort of argument makes absolutely no sense, when:

A) emotions are what caused the argument in the first place
B) emotions are what cause most of the world conflicts today.

So, Aric, I must humbly disagree once more with what you are saying. EMOTIONS are perfectly valid grounds upon which to construct an argument. unless of course you have no sympathy, empathy, or any sort of emotional response... and in that case, is impossible, because you and Yet Another Atheist are so fervently determined to get me to change my mind about this. But aren't you forgetting one of the most BASIC psychological principles or all???? *When one commits publicly to any sort of ideal, there exists a drive to maintain that perspective".

What I think is going on here, is either:
A) you both have no emotions
B) you have emotions, but refuse to acknowledge their validity in an argument
or, my favorite.
C) you have emotions, and are acknowledging them from a strictly BIASED point of view (allowing yourselves to defend your views emotionally, but dismissing other views un-apologetically)

SO WHICH OF THESE IS IT????? personally, I think it is choice C.

but let's look at the facts. You, who all are so emotional (lol) about trying to get me to see your side, are fighting a war with which you have already won.

you see, i agree with the premise (as stated earlier) that, as Americans, the Imam can place his mosque anywhere he chooses. but, it never says anywhere in the constitution about regarding the right to mourn someone's death. given this, it is not illogical or irrational to conclude that this religious group, that is SUPPOSEDLY so interested in pursuing "interfaith relations", should YIELD TO PUBLIC OPINION, since according to SEVERAL NOTABLE POLLS, APPROXIMATELY 60-70% OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DISAPPROVE OF THE MOSQUE BEING BUILT THERE.

As I have stated ten thousand times (but you just refuse, just like any priest of church discussing the disparities of religion to science) that this is not AT ALL ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

This is about the Muslim congregation. the current mosque has a limited capacity, and the Imam and his staff must have been looking for a new establishment somewhere else. so, a new building opens up right next to the World Trade Center bombing site. So, they decide to build a mosque there. Never mind the fact that the US lost thousands of people to a few Muslim terrorists.

All I'm saying is this. 70% of the American public decry this mosque's construction. If they want to build bridges and establish interfaith dialogues, then, start out by giving respect to those have hold animosity towards you.
All I'm saying is this. 70% of the American public decry this mosque's construction. If they want to build bridges and establish interfaith dialogues, then, start out by giving respect to those have hold animosity towards you.

One in five American's think President Obama is a Muslim. So fucking what. You are arguing what Islam, as a religion, should do in order to pander to polls. We are arguing that a private organization has the right to build their community center on private ground that they purchased. Two very different things.

I don't think that this congregation need or should bow to the whims of angry rednecks in Missouri or libertarian hipsters in Oregon.
I have told you that technically, it doesn't matter, however out of basic respect for the HUMAN RIGHT to GRIEVE, I do not think it appropriate to build something that has OBVIOUSLY INCITED MUCH ANIMOSITY TOWARDS THE MUSLIM POPULATION

Wow, I am trying to understand Matt's arguments, but he doesn't seem to make much sense. Help me out, Matt. You believe that people have certain freedoms unless some people find it inappropriate? Then those rights are trumped by the rights of family members of victims who perished nearly a decade ago to dictate what private citizens and organizations can and cannot do on private property blocks away from the site of their tragedy?

WTF are you smoking?

You do know that it is not a mosque and it is not being built on Ground Zero, right? Surely you don't by into media hyperbole meant to instill fear, do you?

however, I don't think that our founding fathers thought about how weak our country has become in terms of allowing others to walk all over us.

Oh.

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service